Gun Control

1. Gun Control

3. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   What does this mean to you?   How do you feel about gun control?

4. Federal Gun Law • 1939 United States v. Miller: the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did not prohibit laws requiring the registration of sawed-off shotguns, because such weapons did not have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” • 1968 Gun Control Act: License requirements were expanded to include more dealers, and more detailed record keeping was expected of them; handgun sales over state lines were restricted; the list of persons dealers could not sell to expandedto include the convicted of felonies, the mentally incompetent, drug users and more. • 1990 Crime Control Act: Directed the attorney general to develop a strategy for establishing criminal penalties for possessing or discharging a firearm in a school zone. Outlawed the assembly of illegal semiautomatic rifles or shotguns from legally imported parts.

5. 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act: Commonly referred to as the "Assault Weapons Ban," this bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of new semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (or magazines) for civilian use. • 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller: Supreme Court for the first time explicitly recognized an individual right to use firearms independent of service in a state militia for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. Two years later, the court held (in McDonald v. Chicago) that this interpretation of the amendment was applicable against state and local gun-control laws as well as against federal statutes.

6. Problem In the US, mass murders committed with guns are (way too) frequent: • 49 people in an Orlando nightclub in 2016 • 20 children and 6 adults at an elementary school in Newtown, CT, in 2012 • 58 killed, 2017, In Las Vegas crowd. • 49 killed, 2016, in a gay nightclub • 32 killed, 2007, Virginia Tech. • 25 adults and an unborn child killed, 2017 in a small church in Texas. • 2019 May 7, mass shooting at STEM School, Colorado • And the list goes on…

7. Gun Regulation in other countries • The United Kingdom has some of the strictest gun legislation in the world. There is practically no organized“right to keep and bear arms” lobby in the UK. • Australia both State and Federal Governments have enacted increasingly restrictive firearms legislation. • In China, citizen have no right to keep and bear arms.

8. “Why Gun ‘Control’ is Not Enough” (Jeff McMahan)

9. ARGUMENT FOR (1) (1A) We have more guns than other developed societies and more violence. (1B) Like nuclear arms race: to compete, criminals get more powerful guns, better strategy. (1C) Ordinary conflicts escalate. (1D) There are more accidents and mistakes. (1E) Bad guys get good guys’ guns. (1F) Police are weakened. MAIN ARGUMENT (1) Gun ownership increases violence, not safety. (2) The second amendment is obsolete. (3) Banning guns would be more effective than alcohol/drug prohibition (4) We have a right to security, not a right to self-defense with guns. (C) Private gun ownership should be banned.* *Target shooting enthusiasts can rent at “the range”

10. MAIN ARGUMENT (1) Gun ownership increases violence, not safety. (2) The second amendment is obsolete. (3) Banning guns would be more effective than alcohol/drug prohibition (4) We have a right to security, not a right to self-defense with guns. (C) Private gun ownership should be banned. ARGUMENT FOR (2) (2A) In our society today, “democratic procedures” are best way of challenging government, not “armed insurrection” (p. 2) (2B) We now rely on Army, Navy, etc. for national defense.

11. MAIN ARGUMENT (1) Gun ownership increases violence, not safety. (2) The second amendment is obsolete. (3) Banning guns would be more effective than alcohol/drug prohibition (4) We have a right to security, not a right to self-defense with guns. (C) Private gun ownership should be banned. ARGUMENT FOR (3) (3A) Desire for drugs/alcohol is “independent of what other people may do” (p. 3) (3B) Desire for guns depends on perceived security.

12. MAIN ARGUMENT (1) Gun ownership increases violence, not safety. (2) The second amendment is obsolete. (3) Banning guns would be more effective than alcohol/drug prohibition (4) A gun ban would not violate our fundamental rights. (C) Private gun ownership should be banned. ARGUMENT FOR (4) (4A) The relevant fundamental right is the right to “security against attack” (4B) That right is respected by a policy that reduces attacks while also reducing one method of self-defense

13. Conclusion: Private gun ownership should be banned.

14. Is There a Right to Own a Gun? by Michael Huemer

15. “ABSTRACT: Individuals have a prima facie right to own firearms. This right is significant in view both of the role that such ownership plays in the lives of firearms enthusiasts and of the self-defense value of firearms. Nor is this right overridden by the social harms of private gun ownership. These harms have been greatly exaggerated and are probably considerably smaller than the benefits of private gun ownership. And I argue that the harms would have to be at least several times greater than the benefits in order to render gun prohibition permissible.”

16. Given the presumption in favor of liberty, there is at least a prima facie right to own a gun, unless there are positive grounds for denying such a right. Are there such grounds?

17. We all agree that one lacks a right to • Harm others • Treat others as mere means • Use others without their consent • Owning a gun cannot be said to do any of those things. • We do not normally prohibit activities that merely make it easier for one to perform a wrong.

18. The risks associated with normal ownership and recreational use of firearms are minimal. Approximately 77 million Americans own guns, the accidental death rate for firearms is about .3 per 100,000 population. Compare: the average citizen is 19 times more likely to die as a result of an accidental fall, and 50 times more likely to die in an automobile accident, than to die as a result of a firearms accident.

19. McMahan argues: when you have a gun, instead of fistfight you shoot the opponent. Only very atypical individuals would shoot their opponents. McMahan’s claims are wrong: In 75 counties in the US over 89% of adult murderers had prior criminal records as adults. So gun ownership does not typically impose excessive risks on others.

20. In general, the fact that restricting an activity has beneficial consequences does not show that no weight at all should be assigned to the freedom to engage in it: (Compare: suppose that taking my car from me and giving it to you increases total social welfare. It would not follow that I have no claim at all on my car.)

21. Is the right to own a gun significant? Yes, on the basis of the importance of gun ownership in the lives of firearms enthusiasts, and the relationship between the right to own a gun and the right of self-defense.

22. (1) the importance of gun ownership in the lives of firearms enthusiasts Consider activities whose primary value is recreational or pleasure-enhancing: non-reproductive sexual activity, reading fiction, watching television or movies… Would it be rational to give up all those activities if by doing so one could increase one’s life expectancy by, say, five minutes? Many gun owners appear to derive enormous satisfaction from the recreational use of firearms, and it is no exaggeration to say that for many, recreational shooting is a way of life. Consequently: A prohibition on firearms ownership would constitute a major interference in the lives of recreational gun users.

23. (2) the relationship between the right to own a gun and the right of self-defense. 1. The right of self-defense is an important right. 2. A firearms prohibition would be a significant violation of the right of self-defense. 3. Therefore, a firearms prohibition would be a serious rights-violation.

24. Consider this scenario: A killer breaks into a house. The accomplice holds the victim down while the killer stabs the victim to death. The killer commits the most serious kind of rights-violation possible. What about the accomplice? Most would agree it’s close to the murder in degree of wrongness.

25. What makes it so wrong is that it prevents the victim from either defending himself or fleeing from the killer—that is, it violates the right of self-defense.

26. Consider this now: The victim has a gun by the bed, which he would, if able, use to defend himself from the killer. As the killer enters the bedroom, the victim reaches for the gun, but the accomplice grabs the gun and runs away, and the killer stabs his victim to death.

27. The accomplice’s action in this case seems morally comparable to his action in previous example. Again, he has intentionally prevented the victim from defending himself. The analogy between the accomplice’s action and a firearms prohibition: A firearms ban would require confiscating the weapons that many individuals keep for self-defense, with the result that some of those individuals would be murdered, robbed, raped, or seriously injured. If the accomplice’s action in example 2 is a major violation of the right of self-defense, then gun prohibition seems to be about equally serious as a violation of the right of self-defense.

28. Consider some objections: With a gun ban the government has strong reasons for confiscating the guns, in order to save the lives of others, which (we presume) is not true of the accomplice in example 2. This, I think, would amount to arguing that the self-defense rights of non-criminal gun owners are overridden by the state’s need to protect society from criminal gun owners.

29. The example differs from a gun ban: the murder is imminent at the time the accomplice takes the gun away. This seems to be morally irrelevant. For suppose that the accomplice decides to take the victim’s gun away from him today, again resulting in the victim’s death tomorrow. This would not make the accomplice’s action morally defensible.

30. Firearms prohibition might be justified, if the reasons for prohibition were strong enough to override that right. So: how great are the harms of private gun ownership? How great are the benefits? What must the cost/benefit ratio be like, for the right to own a gun to be overridden? 1. The harms of private gun ownership have been greatly exaggerated. 2. The benefits of private gun ownership are large and greater than the harms. 3. The harms would have to be many times greater than the benefits in order to override the right to own a gun.

31. 1. The harms of private gun ownership have been greatly exaggerated. The 43-to-1 Statistic: One prominent argument claims that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to be used in a suicide, criminal homicide, or accidental death than it is to kill an intruder in self-defense. * This is misleading. To assess the benefits of guns, one would have to examine the frequency with which guns prevent crimes, rather than the frequency with which they kill criminals. * A second problem is that 37 of Kellerman and Reay’s 43 deaths were suicides. * A third problem is that Kellerman and Reay only counted as “self-defense” cases that were so labeled by the police

32. A second type of argument against guns is comparisons of homicide rates between the United States and other industrialized democracies. Jurisdictions with stricter gun laws tend to have higher crime rates. (ii) Shifts to more permissive gun laws tend to be followed by drops in crime rates. (iii) Areas with higher gun ownership rates have lower crime rates. (iv) Historically, crime rates have fluctuated with no discernible pattern as the civilian gun stock has increased drastically. Thus, at a minimum, one cannot claim justified belief that gun prohibition would be overall beneficial.

33. In order to be justified as a case of the overriding of prima facie rights, gun prohibition would have to save many times as many lives as it cost, for: