Rachel Bortnik
Dr. Ted Vaggalis
PHIL 316: Ethics
8 December 2017
Society’s Rights and Happiness Concerning Guns In Jeff McMahan’s essay, Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough, he argues for a ban on societies gun ownership—except for police and military services are still allowed to handle a gun. The purpose of McMahan’s argument is to resolve the danger guns cause in societies environment and the issue of guns being in the wrong hands. McMahan focuses on both the anti-gun advocates and the gun advocates disagreement of why or why not guns needs to be banned. Many scenarios are presented from both points of views. Both parties present reasoning arguments that lead to no simple answer that they can agree upon. Considering the two sides, a hybrid …show more content…
Society has been split into two over whether or not guns should be banned, but there needs to be a solution where both parties can be happy. Anti-gun advocates present reasoning why guns should be banned. McMahan’s main two arguments of why guns should be banned: one, guns in the community creates a more dangerous environment; and two, the police have less of a power to protect citizens when society has guns (Shafer-Landau, The Ethical Life (EL) 390). McMahan explains that communities are not going to be free of crimes with more people carrying around guns, because criminals will be more prepared, efficient, and quicker to grab and shoot their target (Shafer-Landau, EL 392-392). People with guns will be safer than people without guns, because they do not have a gun to protect themselves. People without guns will still be unsafe, because the police will have less of an upper hand to protect citizens. With criminals, and most of the population processing a gun, the police have no overruling power (weapon) against the vast population with guns. McMahan states, “But while gun control can do a little to restrict access to guns by potential criminals, it can’t do much when guns are to be found in every other household …show more content…
McMahan points out that people who would have had a fist fight, now would simply take out their guns and kill the person who aggravated them, not to mention the people around them are in danger and could be accidently shot (Shafer-Landau, EL 392). Suppose two friends are at a bar and they are drunk, both have a gun, then they start to arguing but nothing over something to kill one another. If they had no guns, they would fist fight and the people around them would try to separate the men. However, if the two men had guns, they would pull out their guns and shoot at each other. One or both of the two friends would get shot and bleed to death, and/or maybe, since most of the community owns guns, many of the people in the bar will pull out their guns and start shooting to protect themselves. When they are trying to protect themselves, aren’t they a danger for others around them? What if the people in the bar are not being shot at, just the two men are shooting at one another, how does the people in the bar stop the men from shooting without killing the men or anyone for that matter? Instead of the people in the bar shooting at the shooters, they could have separated the men if there were no gun ownership. There is bound to be an accidental death. It would be safer for the public to not possess
Dr. Ted Vaggalis
PHIL 316: Ethics
8 December 2017
Society’s Rights and Happiness Concerning Guns In Jeff McMahan’s essay, Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough, he argues for a ban on societies gun ownership—except for police and military services are still allowed to handle a gun. The purpose of McMahan’s argument is to resolve the danger guns cause in societies environment and the issue of guns being in the wrong hands. McMahan focuses on both the anti-gun advocates and the gun advocates disagreement of why or why not guns needs to be banned. Many scenarios are presented from both points of views. Both parties present reasoning arguments that lead to no simple answer that they can agree upon. Considering the two sides, a hybrid …show more content…
Society has been split into two over whether or not guns should be banned, but there needs to be a solution where both parties can be happy. Anti-gun advocates present reasoning why guns should be banned. McMahan’s main two arguments of why guns should be banned: one, guns in the community creates a more dangerous environment; and two, the police have less of a power to protect citizens when society has guns (Shafer-Landau, The Ethical Life (EL) 390). McMahan explains that communities are not going to be free of crimes with more people carrying around guns, because criminals will be more prepared, efficient, and quicker to grab and shoot their target (Shafer-Landau, EL 392-392). People with guns will be safer than people without guns, because they do not have a gun to protect themselves. People without guns will still be unsafe, because the police will have less of an upper hand to protect citizens. With criminals, and most of the population processing a gun, the police have no overruling power (weapon) against the vast population with guns. McMahan states, “But while gun control can do a little to restrict access to guns by potential criminals, it can’t do much when guns are to be found in every other household …show more content…
McMahan points out that people who would have had a fist fight, now would simply take out their guns and kill the person who aggravated them, not to mention the people around them are in danger and could be accidently shot (Shafer-Landau, EL 392). Suppose two friends are at a bar and they are drunk, both have a gun, then they start to arguing but nothing over something to kill one another. If they had no guns, they would fist fight and the people around them would try to separate the men. However, if the two men had guns, they would pull out their guns and shoot at each other. One or both of the two friends would get shot and bleed to death, and/or maybe, since most of the community owns guns, many of the people in the bar will pull out their guns and start shooting to protect themselves. When they are trying to protect themselves, aren’t they a danger for others around them? What if the people in the bar are not being shot at, just the two men are shooting at one another, how does the people in the bar stop the men from shooting without killing the men or anyone for that matter? Instead of the people in the bar shooting at the shooters, they could have separated the men if there were no gun ownership. There is bound to be an accidental death. It would be safer for the public to not possess