In essence, 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." Our nation’s fathers trusted that owning firearm was fundamental to the dignity and the character of a free people in a free nation. Hence, they introduced a 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights which concludes with the sentence “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Bill of it is worth noting that United States Bill of Rights is the list of the fundamental and inalienable rights vested on us by our nation’s founders. These rights characterize Americans as independent and free beings ("Harry L. Wilson. Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms" 319). However, “Gun Control" does not mean that same thing things to various people and both sides of the argument have fiercely opposed each other on the laws governing firearms.
In the opening line of the Second Amendment, there is contention over this phrase, “well regulated". Majority prefers to interpret it as "controlled" by the administration or to be "ruled". In any case, there are different meanings to the tem “regulated" which collectivists don’t recognize in many instances. The Supreme Court pointed out that it is true that every citizens who can bear arms make up the United States reserved militia, as well as the States (Kleinig and Lafollette 17). Despite the fact that there are numerous understandings of the expression “well regulated ", majority concur a properly working militia is very crucial to the defense and security of the United States as a free nation.
There are issues that make gun control an ethical problem. Anti-gun lobbyists and the government regularly use the utilitarian point of view, ‘greatest good for the greatest number.” Essentially, there is an issue with this approach, for what reason should our right to protect and defend ourselves rely upon statistics, for example, crime rate? Should our constitutional right to defend our lives be man a function of violent or homicide crime rates such that the right exists and then ceases to exist as the rate of crime falls or rises above a specific limit? Because crime can occur at anywhere, anytime, to anyone, in this way, a government that assumes the power to judge for itself on issues such as, your eligibility and need to own a weapon can just trust that your life isn't generally worth protecting, until the point that such time that you provide solid evidence to showing otherwise (Spitzer). This utilitarian approach doesn't give regards to the fact that every individual has an inalienable right to liberty and life and also a moral responsibility to protect themselves.
Gun control should matter to us. This is because is all around, my would want to believe they work, travel, and live in unique crime-free areas. In all actuality, crime can happen at any time and any place as criminals do not play by the rules. The question is on whether your life is worth protecting. Provided that it is, then whose duty is it to protect your life? For those who believe it is the police, they are wrong because courts have universally ruled that it is not the legal responsibility of the police to do that, yet there is another question ("Harry L. Wilson. Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms" 320). In what manner would you be able to rightfully request that another person to risk his life to secure yours when you will take no accountability yourself? Regularly, we claim to be stunned that violent criminals have no regard for our liberty, lives, or our property. However for what reason should criminals have any respect for our lives, liberty or property when we don't value them enough to take the responsibility of defending them ourselves? It is my belief that one who values his or her life enough and takes responsibility seriously will hold and nurture the ways for appropriately defending themselves.
If the issue of gun control is not addressed, Americans will continue to die from gun violence. For instance, some studies show that household firearms were 43 times more likely to kill a relative or friend than a burglar. This proposes that it is criminally reckless to keep a weapon in the home for self-defense. Many believe that the danger of having a firearm in the home greatly surpasses the benefits. There are counter arguments to this. For instance, some studies show that guns are utilized much more regularly to deter than to carry out a crime. One out of six who had used a firearm for self-preservation was relatively sure that a life would have been lost if it wants for the firearm (Kleinig and Lafollette 18). This mean that guns save around 400,000 lives every year. Yet, at that point, Statistics are just numbers likely to change from place to place and year to year. As such, statistics should not be the single defense on whether gun control should be lenient or more stringent.
I believe the best way to address this problem is through Kantian approach. This is because the utilitarian ethics is not consistent with individual rights ethics. Presently, if people are allowed to have certain rights just inasmuch as their application of those rights is seen to bring or serve a ‘greater good of the greater number’, then certainty they have no individual or inalienable rights per se. In this way, when gun lobbyists, for example, Gary Kleck, defend the right to not only own firearms, but also carry them with utilitarian arguments, defending individual right makes no sense (Kleinig and Lafollette 18). Rather, they are simply attempting to persuade the greatest number to allow them to use such a liberty as the right to carry weapons. From an individual right ethics perspective, people may not be dealt with exclusively ‘a means to an end’ however should likewise be dealt with as “ends in themselves," according to Kant.
My argument reveals that I lean more toward Kantian ethics. Everybody has their free will and it’s my belief that American was founded on freedom. Along these lines, it is unethical to limit one's right and entitlement to carry firearms based on fact that another person has abused his freedom (Spitzer). The Utilitarians rationalizes using some just as a means to the satisfaction of others' ends, insofar as the individuals who are to be sacrificed are not many in number. It is the same as suggesting that no one has a right to life, because his or her rights are being tossed aside in quest for a greater good. We have to realize that nothing will change on the fact that people have the fundamental right to own and carry arms under the second amendment, and everybody has the right to life.
Conclusion
As can be seen from my discussion above, I am more of a Kantian when it comes to analyzing the issue of gun control. This is because I believe in the second amendments rights as provided for by the founding fathers. I believe in the original intent of the founding fathers and I believe Americans should be able to defend themselves and there is no better way that by the use of a gun. As such, it is unethical to restrict gun ownership based on mere statistics. I prefer ending this discussion with this quote, "You can have my weapon when you pry it from my dead hands."
Works Cited
"Harry L. Wilson. Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms." Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 71, no. 2, 2007, pp. 318-322.
Kleinig, John, and Hugh Lafollette. "Gun control: The issues." Criminal Justice Ethics, vol. 20, no. 1, 2001, pp. 17-18.
Spitzer, Robert J. The Politics of Gun Control. 7thth ed., Routledge, 2018.
