Most people believe that there are only two sides available when it comes to gun control; to either oppose or support gun control. However, gun control falls under a much more complex system of alternatives and policies. The government not only has the ability to abolish guns to a certain degree, but can also make restrictions on which guns citizens can legally own. Thus, there is much more complexity than to simply support or oppose gun control. There are many options available on deciding who can own which guns and under what conditions. In his paper, Lafollette presents both sides of the gun control argument. Lafollette argues that gun control has a range of options for both abolition and restrictions. One side of the scale concerns abolition
…show more content…
Although Lafollette finds the evidence that gun ownership prevents crime questionable, there are many studies showing that gun ownership proves beneficial to society. For example, a study analyzing the impact of eighteen major types of gun control laws, invloving all major types of violent crimes throughout one hundred and seventy cities in the United States, concluded that gun restrictions generally had no effect on suicide and violent crime rates (Kleck and Patterson 1993). In order to justify taking away citizens prima facie rights, gun abolition would need to save more lives than it costs. Even if the there was a strong correlation between guns and crime, abolition or restrictions wouldn’t stop the ability of getting a firearm. For the same reason as alcohol prohibition, gun abolition would fail as well. Possibility of organized crime would likely follow a ban on all guns, just as it did during the ban of alcohol in the United States. Prohibition is a key example of a failed attempt at the government trying to legislate moral issues. If society can tolerate alcohol despite all the negative effects it brings, then guns should be tolerated as well. Especially considering guns offer a benefit of saving a human life, unlike alcohol which kills more than twice that of …show more content…
Still, even if considered inherently dangerous, there are as many guns in the United States as there are citizens. Any attempt at abolition of guns would be extremely impossible. However, I agree with Lafollette’s proposition that the government should make gun owners liable for harm caused by the use of their guns. Like any other inherently dangerous object, a gun is an object that must be handled not only with caution, but with comprehension and awareness. Like with owning a car or motorcycle, by requiring liability and insurance to gun owners you are protecting not only the gun owners, but anyone who is harmed by them. I believe that because citizens have a prima facie right to own guns, then alternative policies should include enforcing liability to owners and mandating insurance. These legal procedures could be justified because guns are inherently dangerous, and it is reasonable to have people be liable for their own dangerous actions. The moral right to keep and bear arms is upheld by the fundamental moral right of self-defense and the fact that it’s our constitutional right. Gun ownership should not be restricted on the premise that its benefits outweigh the harm it causes. All citizens have a prima facie right to own a gun, and manty people deem it
Although Lafollette finds the evidence that gun ownership prevents crime questionable, there are many studies showing that gun ownership proves beneficial to society. For example, a study analyzing the impact of eighteen major types of gun control laws, invloving all major types of violent crimes throughout one hundred and seventy cities in the United States, concluded that gun restrictions generally had no effect on suicide and violent crime rates (Kleck and Patterson 1993). In order to justify taking away citizens prima facie rights, gun abolition would need to save more lives than it costs. Even if the there was a strong correlation between guns and crime, abolition or restrictions wouldn’t stop the ability of getting a firearm. For the same reason as alcohol prohibition, gun abolition would fail as well. Possibility of organized crime would likely follow a ban on all guns, just as it did during the ban of alcohol in the United States. Prohibition is a key example of a failed attempt at the government trying to legislate moral issues. If society can tolerate alcohol despite all the negative effects it brings, then guns should be tolerated as well. Especially considering guns offer a benefit of saving a human life, unlike alcohol which kills more than twice that of …show more content…
Still, even if considered inherently dangerous, there are as many guns in the United States as there are citizens. Any attempt at abolition of guns would be extremely impossible. However, I agree with Lafollette’s proposition that the government should make gun owners liable for harm caused by the use of their guns. Like any other inherently dangerous object, a gun is an object that must be handled not only with caution, but with comprehension and awareness. Like with owning a car or motorcycle, by requiring liability and insurance to gun owners you are protecting not only the gun owners, but anyone who is harmed by them. I believe that because citizens have a prima facie right to own guns, then alternative policies should include enforcing liability to owners and mandating insurance. These legal procedures could be justified because guns are inherently dangerous, and it is reasonable to have people be liable for their own dangerous actions. The moral right to keep and bear arms is upheld by the fundamental moral right of self-defense and the fact that it’s our constitutional right. Gun ownership should not be restricted on the premise that its benefits outweigh the harm it causes. All citizens have a prima facie right to own a gun, and manty people deem it