With gun control debates emerging as a major topic in the past election and currently in our communities, it is imperative to distinguish the justification for the allowance of guns to remain apart of our society. Michael Huemer and Daniel Demetriou both suggest that individuals have a prima facie right to own a gun and that prohibition of such would violate the right to self defense. Both Huemer an Demetriou offer their own respective conclusions without citing the second amendment. Offering arguments without citing the second amendment is beneficial because typically those who oppose gun control commonly use the amendment as their sole source of justification. Huemer’s and Demetriou’s arguments both offer different and unique reasons in
…show more content…
Huemer expresses that, “just as it would be wrong for the state to murder innocent individuals” it would “also be wrong for the state to be an accomplice in their murders” (Huemer). This leads to Huemer’s question: Would society would be better off given a gun ban? Huemer thinks that does not matter. Instead he believes that even if society is better off because of the gun ban, that banning guns still is unjustified because of our rights to protect ourselves. Presumably, the greater number of people might be better off, but that does not mean we are better off having laws against gun control. Huemer additionally backs this claim by giving examples of drugs or alcohol usage. It is pointed out that buying or selling illegal drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroine. This does not conclude that although it is illegal to purchase or sell these activities still go on. Instead these actions are done under the table through additionally illegal channels. The same happened with the Prohibition era from around 1920 – 1933, where the government attempted to legislate morality. Even though alcohol was not permitted at the time, ‘speakeasies’ existed where alcohol consumption continued to happen. These two examples examine that although a ban might be placed on gun control, people find a way to choose for themselves. Huemer importantly notes that, “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”. He concludes his argument stating that gun control advocates believe that we would be better off if no individual had guns. He thinks that this is not the question, but instead, would “our society would be safer if the people with the greatest disposition to follow the law gave up their weapons, and the people with the least inclination to obey the law kept theirs”
Huemer expresses that, “just as it would be wrong for the state to murder innocent individuals” it would “also be wrong for the state to be an accomplice in their murders” (Huemer). This leads to Huemer’s question: Would society would be better off given a gun ban? Huemer thinks that does not matter. Instead he believes that even if society is better off because of the gun ban, that banning guns still is unjustified because of our rights to protect ourselves. Presumably, the greater number of people might be better off, but that does not mean we are better off having laws against gun control. Huemer additionally backs this claim by giving examples of drugs or alcohol usage. It is pointed out that buying or selling illegal drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroine. This does not conclude that although it is illegal to purchase or sell these activities still go on. Instead these actions are done under the table through additionally illegal channels. The same happened with the Prohibition era from around 1920 – 1933, where the government attempted to legislate morality. Even though alcohol was not permitted at the time, ‘speakeasies’ existed where alcohol consumption continued to happen. These two examples examine that although a ban might be placed on gun control, people find a way to choose for themselves. Huemer importantly notes that, “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”. He concludes his argument stating that gun control advocates believe that we would be better off if no individual had guns. He thinks that this is not the question, but instead, would “our society would be safer if the people with the greatest disposition to follow the law gave up their weapons, and the people with the least inclination to obey the law kept theirs”