The Ethical Debate of Gun Control Introduction The debate of gun control presents an ethical dilemma in deciding which rights afforded by the US Constitution are more important. The ethical debate places the rights afforded in the Second Amendment to bear arms against the rights afforded in the First Amendment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The ethical predicament has roots in societal views of violence and how it is observed by both sides of the debate. History of the Debate Gun control in the United States refers to any action taken by the federal, state, or local governments to regulate through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of firearms by individuals. Many high profile shootings, such as the 1999 shooting …show more content…
The Second Amendment says, “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.” Gun rights has become the subject of intense political, social, and cultural battles for much of the last century. The pro-gun right side has asserted that the right to arms was absolute, and that any gun control laws infringed that right (Kopel, 2013). This right has been supported by the Supreme Court who has reinforced what has become the American consensus that the Second Amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, especially for self-defense, and that it is a fundamental individual …show more content…
Ethical arguments for gun rights center on the right of security, civic duty, and constitutional right of the people. Those in favor of gun control focus on the human toll, loss of life, and the distortion of what the Second Amendment’s original intent. Hope for change and improvement in this issue is a long shot at best due to each side becoming more entrenched within their belief system. Framing the violence in America as a mental health issue distracts from the fact that we do indeed have a gun problem in America. The guns in of themselves do not present the issue, it is the access, supply, and the operation of these weapons that bring this issue to the forefront every time one watches the news or reads a newspaper. We have traded the respect for life over clinging to our guns out of the fear of losing them. If we once again learn to appreciate the value of life, society will then decide to do whatever is right to protect life, as this right should supersede any other right afforded to us by our
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms. When the Second Amendment was written it was for the right to arm oneself as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, gun advocates proclaim that guns are for the right to self-defense. Some people try to participate and uphold the law. We have seen how guns in the hands of children can cause fatal accidents and people have committed mindless crimes leading to
The second amendment states that “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.” (1 GOVT 6., Sidlow/Henschen). Often because of the social and political demands for gun control, the second amendment seems to consistently conjure claims of personal violation of rights, whether in agreement or disagreement of gun
Thesis: The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms, remains a controversial topic in American society, with strong arguments on both sides of the debate. The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 and is part of the Bill of Rights, which ensures individual liberties and limits government power. It states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " Supporters of the Second Amendment argue that it is a fundamental right that protects individual freedom and provides a means of self-defense.
Some individuals contend that the Second Amendment's text is out-of-date, unclear, and does not necessarily represent the amendment's primary intent or goals. Others believe that the Second Amendment has indeed been misunderstood and that it doesn't give an unrestricted ability to own and carry any kind of firearm. They think the amendment should be modified in order to make it more clear what it means and communicate more effectively. With the amount of shooting rampages in our nation, these forces have turned into an even more urgent issue that requires direct action. There are critics on both sides of this matter, yet, guns should be allowed to remain owned and controlled by any competent but should have more laws to
The right to bear arms has been a controversial issue ever since James Madison established it as the second amendment of the constitution. The second amendment states, “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” (US Const. amend. II). Those in favor of the second amendment, believe that arms are used for protection, dangerous situations, and sports.
Updating the Amendment 2.0 The right to bear arms has been a favoured constitutional law since its establishment in 1791, but as more gun related violence and accidents occur, there has been increasing debate on whether or not guns should be banned in the US altogether, and if not, what regulations should be required for the purchase and handling of them. While guns should not be completely banned from the country, the rules and regulations of gun laws should be tightened. In the 2nd amendment, it clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” While this statement still holds true, the evolution of firearms and how they have become more dangerous throughout the years is a clear sign of why the laws should be changed.
When debating the wisdom of the Constitution’s Second Amendment, the media tends to start from the presumption that the question is purely scientific, and that the answers can — and should — be derived from statistical analyses and relentless experimentation. This approach is mistaken. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not the product of the latest research fads or exquisitely tortured “data journalism,” but a natural extension of the Lockean principles on which this country was founded. It must be protected as such. The Declaration of Independence presumes that all men enjoy certain inalienable rights, among them “life” and “liberty.”
The right to bear arms has been a controversial issue ever since James Madison established it as the second amendment of the constitution. The second amendment states, “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” (US Const. amend. II). Those in favor of the second amendment, believe that arms are used for protection, dangerous situations, and sports.
Before delving into these touchy subjects, there are six ethical points to touch upon with relation to gun control which is of importance since the debate is on each end of the issue. It is fair to accept that there will always be opposing sides with respect to gun control and groups who will depict the pros and cons of the second amendment, therefore, it is important to know the difference between all parties involved. However, it is equally important that privileges are not being abused or mismanaged rather used for the greater
Looking at the utilitarian approach, it is seen to have significant meaning for both those that are for and against gun control. As the utilitarian theory approach focuses on the theory that “an action is ethical if the good that it is predicted to produce outweighs the bad”. In this case, depending on the perspective of the individual, it can have significantly lead to different conclusions that supports both sides of the gun control debate. Specifically, gun control proponents have argued that the utilitarian approach is justification for gun control as the banning of gun ownership will protect society and make the world a better place through a lower chance of gun violence despite the restraining of civil liberties. On the other hand, gun control
Gun control is a topic that has been debated over the last few years. It is a subject that many people stand for and against the change in policy. Basically gun control would change the way firearms are regulated, by changing laws or polices that control how they are made, sold, owned, and used by civilians. However by trying to take away firearms from civilians would be infringing upon their rights as United States citizens. There are many ethical reasons why gun control should not be implemented towards law-abiding citizens such as it is hypocritical, neglects the reality of control, and is discriminating against gun owners.
The question on whether the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. should be changed or not has become a widely discussed and argued topic as of recent, due to recurring incidents of shootings occurring on U.S. soil by its own inhabitants. While many would be in support of the right to bear arms, including myself, I do believe that the current gun laws need to be made more restrictive than they are in their current state, for the sake of the country and the safety of its people. I’m well aware that I am not a U.S. citizen and that I have no say in what decisions are made there regarding the country’s constitution, but I feel that what I have to say is shared by many of America’s people and that it’s not only Americans that are affected by guns but also those who are visiting the country from abroad. There are many problems regarding America’s very unrestrictive gun laws at present, whether it’s the fact that there is no federal minimum age for possession of a long gun, or the fact that individuals don’t
The Gun Control Debate In recent years, there’s not many topics on the political spectrum that aren’t absolutely polarizing. This essay will attempt to show each side’s generalized opinions, and find flaws in each of their arguments, as every ethical argument has flaws. Analyzing each side will help anyone understand their own opinions better, because without the demonization of the opposite party, ethics get much more difficult. Gun control is everywhere in the news right now, as three months into the year, the country has had12 school shootings in 2018. Exploring the ethics of gun control can get messy and emotional, but it’s important to understand all sides of a subject.
The issue of gun control is an ever growing pandemic debate in the United States of America. This is an issue that intrudes on many different topics ranging from personal liberty and safety to government control and regulation. It has become a question of whether or not law abiding citizens are allowed to possess regulated firearms and to what extent they are to do so. There are many different positions on what gun control laws and regulations should be, but the two wings of the spectrum are people who believe in complete gun control and people who believe in absolutely no gun control. These two viewpoints are in constant conflict with one another and both have definitive arguments to uphold their standpoints.
Gun control is now one of the main issues in North America because of all the crimes involving guns in the past decade. Nearly, 25,000 people died due to uncontrollable gun violence in 2005. Americans should oppose government policy about the gun laws because it is a moral duty to ensure safety due to many people are being killed. Throughout the last ten years, the number of mass shooting and innocent people who gave died in the United State has been rising.