Ethical Perspectives on Gun Ownership and Gun Violence Debates Essay

Introduction

The ethics of citizens owning and using guns have a long history of heated debates in the political and philosophical spheres. The discussion about guns includes many aspects, such as one’s right to bear arms as written in federal laws, the ideology behind guns as objects, and the outcomes of gun violence. Many ethical theories can be used to analyze these issues, and the current scholarship is starkly divided on the ownership of guns, with the conflict remaining active to this day. The analysis of gun violence should consider the nature of the gun, people’s relationship with firearms, the idea behind inherent and given rights, and the extent of government power.

Understanding the Ethical Dimensions of Gun Violence

The problem of gun violence covers many elements, but it is primarily concerned with the potential dangers that guns pose to people’s lives. Current and historical statistics are often used to demonstrate and support all positions. For example, a proponent of gun ownership may cite the increased crime rates as a signal that owning a firearm is a measure of protecting oneself from criminals (Huemer 602).

In contrast, the opposition to this view may present the number of people killed with guns every day or the number of school shootings in the United States (Cheng). The other side’s different framing of these numbers may reimagine them for use in one another’s arguments. On the one hand, a gun control advocate may look at the high crime rate and argue for the need to limit gun access to lower the risks of crimes being committed by persons owning guns. On the other hand, a person in support of free gun possession may see the number of shootings and argue that people protecting schools should be able to own firearms.

Contrasting Views on Gun Ownership and Self-Protection

Therein lies the main subject of the investigation that should be covered in an ethics class. Initially, students should review and discuss the nature of the gun itself. The discussion often portrays a firearm as an object without inherent morality or as an instrument that can influence one’s ethical decisions (Huemer 608). The first side of this debate often argues that guns are not responsible for killing people – individuals are the ones to perpetrate and make decisions leading to the death of other persons. From this point of view, guns can be viewed as tools that do not impact one’s ethical decision-making and have no influence on the situation. Thus, character is the only factor that can influence the outcome.

The Nature of Firearms: Neutral Tools or Moral Influencers?

The second approach to understanding the nature of a gun is that, despite being an inanimate object, firearms possess a certain power to alter circumstances due to their destructive capabilities. In this case, one may argue that the presence of a gun in a situation – whether it is one of offense or defense – impacts one’s decision-making process and results in different outcomes. The relationship between a firearm’s destructive power and the rate of gun violence is considered in this case, not placing the responsibility on one’s morality as the sole reason for shooting or not shooting. The comparison between these views is vital for an ethics discussion, as it questions how people act in an environment and whether it influences their choices and thinking.

Cultural and Global Perspectives

The discussion about the nature of firearms can also be connected to the culture of violence and the presence of guns in citizens’ lives. Here, one can examine how guns are perceived worldwide to determine whether the debate is rooted in ethical differences between cultures. The topic is political in the sense that societal views often shape or influence government decisions. The arguments citing foreign gun control laws can be taken as an example of various opinions on gun violence – it is apparent that gun control laws are much stricter in many countries in Europe, for instance (Huemer 603). Therefore, examining the global perceptions of firearms and their characterization can broaden our understanding of why the ethical issue remains relevant today.

Control, Freedom, and Responsibility

The next potential topic that can be considered when investigating the area of gun violence is the links between government control, personal freedoms, and responsibilities. The issue of gun ownership cannot be examined without considering the ethical implications of politics. Both sides of the debate surrounding firearm violence provide arguments with the purpose of either adding or removing constraints for acquiring and carrying firearms in local laws (Siegel and Blocher 11). Thus, the extent to which the government can control people’s lives is inextricably linked to this ethical discussion.

In the United States, the central sphere of politics that is concerned with guns is the Second Amendment – the right to bear arms (Huemer 602). This passage presents a vital argument among those who support the right to have and carry guns. However, it is also connected to the overall description of citizen rights in the Constitution. At the same time, state and local laws that limit or permit different types of gun carrying and ownership regulations make the debate more complex, considering the specific limits of systemic control.

Philosophical Approaches to Gun Violence

Deontology

Ultimately, the topic of gun violence can be examined from various philosophical perspectives and explored in relation to major ethical theories. A perspective that opposes gun control may be examined under the deontological school of thought. Deontological ethics posits that the morality of an action depends not on its consequences but on the intent and its inherent moral standing (Vaughn 131).

For example, Huemer uses this perspective to argue that the prohibition of guns cannot be justified even if it can lead to a reduction in violent crimes, school shootings, and suicides (601). It is suggested that deontic constraints go against one’s right to possess a firearm. This ethical view is strongly connected to the previously mentioned topic of government control.

The author also compares the United States’ economics and politics to those of other countries with stricter gun control laws. This is an attempt to refute the standard argument about connecting strict gun control and low rates of violent crimes (Huemer 605). Here, the morality of owning a gun is viewed as positive if the carrier is a moral person who acts to defend oneself or others from offenders. The support of the deontological nature of human rights opposes the view that guns should be prohibited because they are potentially dangerous.

Consequentialism

The consequentialist theory can answer the questions related to gun violence differently, and those supporting gun control laws often use this approach. As Huemer notes, the arguments against his point of view are rooted in consequentialism (601). It is a philosophy that determines the morality of actions based on the positive outcomes of the most significant part of society (Vaughn 104).

While the previous ethical theory connects one’s right to own a gun to the issue of governmental control, this framework is more interested in another theme – the outcomes of using guns and their nature as non-neutral objects. For example, an argument can be presented that the ownership of guns is more dangerous than gun control because the former increases the risk of violent crime or violent reaction to adverse events. Thus, a firearm owner contributes to the risk of gun violence regardless of intent and potentially endangers society as a whole (Siegel and Blocher 14).

The arguments surrounding school shootings commonly appear connected to this philosophical view, as they consider the outcomes for children physically or mentally affected by the events (Siegel and Blocher 15). The question of gun violence shifts its focus from citizen rights to citizen safety, and the victim’s point of view replaces the narrative of a defender with a firearm. As a result, a utilitarian view may answer the question of whether guns should be controlled by supporting the restrictions to protect most citizens while encroaching on the right to bear arms.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the ethical issue of gun violence is highly divisive and complex. When studying this topic, learners may examine how guns are perceived by society – as objects that have no impact on one’s decisions or as tools that alter the decision-making process. Furthermore, one may investigate the political view of gun ownership and control, considering the different perspectives and their connection to people’s rights and duties. The two main philosophical approaches to this issue are deontology and consequentialism. The two theories look at the different aspects of gun violence and present arguments that oppose one another, keeping the debate reliant on one’s perception of human morality.

Works Cited

Cheng, Britt. “12 Stats to Help Inform the Gun Control Debate.” NPR, 2022. Web.

Huemer, Michael. “Gun Rights as Deontic Constraints.” Social Theory and Practice, 2019, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 601-612.

Siegel, Reva B., and Joseph Blocher. “Why Regulate Guns?” The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, vol. 48, no. 4_suppl, 2020, pp. 11-16.

Vaughn, Lewis. Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. 5^th ed., Norton, 2019.