Arguments over gun control revolve around one of two things: trying to maximize or minimize a certain set of statistics or hoping to establish a specific set of individual rights. Those who attempt to maximize or minimize societal outcomes advance a utilitarian argument; those who advocate for establishing individual rights in relation to gun ownership rely on their own arbitrarily-defined belief system.
Whenever two parties are engaged in a political or philosophical argument, there must be agreement about the subjective yet fundamental principles that will hold during the course of that argument. If one person enters an argument about gun control with the idea that government should do whatever it takes to minimize gun-related homicides and another enters with the idea that gun ownership is a fundamental human right, that argument will go nowhere. While neither argumentative style (utilitarian or rights-based) is objectively better than the other, utilitarian gun control arguments depend on a causal relationship that doesn’t exist.
If we assume that government’s goal should be to enact gun policy that minimizes homicides, then there must be clear evidence that a certain policy action would indeed minimize homicides. Unfortunately for those with the noble goal of using government policy to create the best society, there is no clear, scientific evidence indicating which gun policy minimizes homicide. In fact, one can advocate for almost any gun policy using empirical research from the United States and other countries.
If we look at Honduras, we see a country with over 60 homicides per 100,000 people and fewer than 10 firearms per 100 people. Data for the United States shows that a country with 90 firearms per 100 people sees only five homicides per 100,000 people. Looking at the data this way could create the argument that owning more firearms clearly leads to less crime. Of course, it is still possible to find statistics which suggest that extremely limited gun ownership minimizes homicides. The point is that the empirical evidence can’t suggest an appropriate policy action. Instead, it reveals that countries are different and that there are a multitude of factors that must cause violence within a society. There is no correlation between gun ownership and violence; consequently, gun ownership doesn’t cause any type of violence or crime either.
Since utilitarian arguments can’t possibly be applied when discussing gun policy, rights-based arguments must be. I personally use a simple ethical framework when analyzing policy: Under normal circumstances, it is immoral to initiate force. “Initiate force” means to act upon any person or their property without their consent. “Normal circumstances” means that we assume an emergency situation doesn’t exist. One such example of an emergency situation where our morals may change could be a situation where someone is freezing to death outside an unoccupied, heated cabin and is considering breaking in.
In relation to gun policy, normal circumstances apply. From my reasoning it follows that prohibiting gun ownership would be wrong because doing so requires an entity to physically prevent someone from owning or purchasing a firearm. Additionally, I don’t support mandatory background checks or other restrictions. If a background check would reveal that someone is unfit for gun ownership, then they aren’t fit to be a member of society and should still be in prison or a mental health institute.
Not everyone has an ethical rule they apply to all situations in order to determine the appropriate action. While I come to my extremely pro-gun positions this way, others don’t. For those concerned about determining their own destiny and controlling their own safety, an argument from an individualistic perspective may be most convincing.
If we believe the rhetoric that guns are unnecessary in the 21st century and were only needed during the Revolutionary War, we create a society where guns are completely illegal and all law-abiding citizens do not own firearms. Anyone can see that, especially given today’s technology of 3D printing, it is impossible to make guns disappear by writing a law that attempts to do so. Consequently, individuals dedicated to committing some type of crime will still be able to obtain a gun. If we take the approach of banning firearms, we are simply hoping that legislation will be able to protect us when there are most certainly individuals in society and in the world with the power to kill us.
If I am ever in a situation where someone is attempting to kill or severely injure me or someone around me, I would rather have the gun that could quickly stop them than the hope that police would swoop in and save me. If I was about to die, I wouldn’t console myself with the notion that my society was intended to be “gun-free” and that enacting strict gun control or a gun ban could potentially have a miniscule correlational effect on crime. Instead, I would wonder why people are willing to sacrifice their inherent right to self-defense in the hopes that it will make them safer when empirical data doesn’t prove any causational relationship between guns and crime.
I’m not trying to imply that everyone needs to carry a gun all the time—it is perfectly fine if you choose to rely on the police for protection. However, it is important to know that it is impossible to determine if banning guns will benefit society, and enacting such a ban will take away the ability for citizens to take defense into their own hands.
Tim is a freshman majoring in finance and economics.
How do you feel about Tim’s stance on the gun control debate? Please send all questions and comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
