Introduction
The debate over gun ownership has been going on for a long time. The views over the debate are divided right in the middle. Each group has its valid reasons for the claims and this makes it harder to point out who should be supported. However, the argument for individual gun ownership based on self-defense is self-defeating and therefore warrants a restriction. A look at Hughes’ and Hunt’s “The Liberal Basis of the Right to Bear Arms” and DeGrazia’s “Handguns, Moral Rights, and Physical Security” provides sufficient evidence to support this claim.
Reconstruction
The Liberal Basis of the Right to Bear Arms
In their article, Hughes, and Hunt attempt to prove that the restriction of individual ownership is in itself a violation of the autonomy of its owners. According to them, autonomy refers to the idea of control individuals should have on their lives and can be “minimal” or “maximal” (Hughes & Hunt, 2000). “Minimal” autonomy refers to a “private” life that does not affect that of others without their consent while “maximal” autonomy encompasses the idea of an individual owning his or her self (self-ownership).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In order to prove that bans on individual gun ownership, Hughes and Hunt use the case of Ms. Jackson. The case of Ms. Jackson involves her shooting and killing an armed man who had been trying to carjack her vehicle with her and her daughter inside it (Hughes & Hunt, 2000). In this case, Ms. Jackson is the victim of a lethal force threat from the armed man. Therefore, the right of self-defense gives her plausibility for killing the armed man. However, her right to physical security would have been violated if a ban on handguns had been in effect.
According to Hughes and Hunt (2000), a ban on handguns would have put Ms. Jackson in mortal danger. Ms. Jackson was being accosted by an armed man which put her in danger of potential death. Therefore, her killing of the armed man was a legitimate use of the gun. The action of banning individual gun ownership would have therefore violated her autonomy as she used the gun to protect herself from the impermissible actions of another. Her right to physical security would also be threatened. A restriction justified by type risks would also not apply.
Hughes and Hunt also believe that banning of handguns cannot be justified by type-dangers. According to them, guns can be classified as bringing about a high degree of type-danger such as intentional death and injury (Hughes & Hunt, 2000). However, since the action of Ms. Jackson was driven by that of an individual, what they refer to as token-danger, it is justifiable as it harmed an individual. Therefore, individual gun owners should not be restricted from using their handguns as they only pose a threat to individuals.
Handguns, Moral Rights, and Physical Security
In his article, DeGrazia attempts to make a case for his view that owning a handgun is self-defeating. He attempts to prove this through a series of steps that he considers justify gun ownership as a necessity for physical security. It is his belief that even though handguns may promote effective self-defense, the question as to whether it is the best form of physical security is open. If indeed gun ownership was not self-defeating then it would be effective in its purpose. However, there is evidence that proves that gun ownership is self-defeating.
Households that own guns are less safe than those that are gun-free. According to DeGrazia (2014), having a gun at home increases the likelihood of death by suicide. This is because those intending to commit suicide tend to be impulsive and the presence of a gun facilitates their action (DeGrazia, 2014). The risk of homicide in such homes is also higher especially in homes where domestic violence is rampant. The risk of accidental death is also higher in such households. Therefore, the right to own a handgun can be overridden.
According to DeGrazia (2014), the right to own guns in the United States can be overridden if some specific factors are taken into consideration. A right can be overridden if it conflicts with other rights. If the safety of those it is intended to protect is at risk, then it the right should be overridden as their right to safety is threatened (DeGrazia, 2014). According to DeGrazia (2014), the incidence of homicides of children ages 5 to 14 is 17 times in the United States more than those of other wealthy nations.
Therefore, the right to gun ownership should be morally overridden because (DeGrazia, 2014):
Overriding it will result in social good such as reduction in violent deaths.
It conflicts with the right to a reasonably safe environment.
It is a negative right while the right to a reasonably safe environment is a positive right.
Analysis
In a perfect world, both the proponents and opponents would get what they want. However, in this analysis, the strengths of each group’s views are considered. This analysis will employ compare and contrast the different views aired by Hughes and Hunt and DeGrazia.
Hughes and Hunt are strongly against the imposition of a ban on handgun ownership. They believe this is a violation of an individual’s autonomy and their right to physical security. They use the story of Ms. Jackson and type-dangers to support to support their claims. The strengths and weaknesses of their claims are:
Strengths
The right to self-defense if plausible justifies defensive gun use.
The right to physical security is justifiable as a part of autonomy.
Weaknesses
The dangers brought about by gun ownership cannot be simply ignored as each individual case cumulatively makes up a large number of incidences.
The right to physical security is not only achieved through gun ownership.
Banning gun ownership does not necessarily leave individuals unprotected.
On the other hand, DeGrazia’s views revolve around whether owning a handgun is self-defeating or not. DeGrazia concludes that owning a handgun is indeed self-defeating. This is because the intended use of the gun is outweighed by the violent deaths it causes. Therefore, the right to own a handgun is overridden based on these considerations. The strengths and weaknesses of DeGrazia’s views are:
Strengths
The benefits of owning a handgun are outweighed by the demerits.
The importance of positive rights (the right to a reasonably safe environment) cannot be compared to those of negative rights (the right to gun ownership).
Restricting gun ownership contributes to the overall good of the public.
Weaknesses
Banning individual gun ownership leaves people in unsafe neighborhoods unprotected.
Evidently, DeGrazia’s views hold more weight than those of Hughes and Hunt. This is because even though gun ownership is not necessarily a causal agent of crime, it contributes heavily to violent deaths. One might argue that those affected deserve it, but one must also consider the lives of the innocent that are at stake. The innocent are the victims of accidental gun-related deaths, suicide, and domestic violence. The right to self-defense cannot be only achieved through gun ownership. That is the work of law enforcement agencies. Therefore, individual gun ownership should be restricted.
References
DeGrazia, D. (2014). “Handguns, Moral Rights, and Physical Security.” Journal of Moral Philosophy , 1-21.
Hughes, T. C. & Hunt, L. H. (2000). “The Liberal Basis of the Right to Bear Arms.” Public Affairs Quarterly , 14(1), 1-25.
