I gave my introduction to ethics students a survey this semester for their input on what topics we would discuss and many of them requested gun control. A survey from a few years back suggests that this wasn't a very popular topic, but presumably - especially now - it will become an even more more pressing issue.
I searched for readings. For readings from philosophers, it looks like there was an issue of Criminal Justice Ethics that had a set of likely really good articles:
http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/Controlling.Guns.htm
Epilogue: Is there an issue here?
Journal: Criminal Justice EthicsVolume 20, Issue 1, January 2001, pages 40-44
Available online: 1 Sep 2010
And here are some other writings that I found in Philosophers' Index:
===============================Handguns, Philosophers, and the Right to Self-DefenseAuthors:Source:International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 25(2), 151-170. 20 p. FALL 2011.Abstract:
Within the last decade or so several philosophers have argued against handgun prohibition on the ground that it violates the right to self-defense. However, even these philosophers grant that the right to own handguns is not absolute and could be over-ridden if doing so would bring about an enormous social good. Analysis of intra-United States empirical data cited by gun rights advocates indicates that guns do not make us safer, while international data lends powerful support to the thesis that guns do indeed increase homicide. If handguns do not make us safer, then appealing to the right to self-defense as an objection to prohibition is moot. Prohibition neither violates the right to self-defense nor sacrifices anyone's interests for the common good, since it makes each person less likely to be murdered than the current permissive handgun laws. Moreover, we also must take into account the right to life of victims of handgun crimes made possible by liberal handgun laws. Consequently, invoking the right to self-defense does not provide any sound reason against handgun prohibition over and above familiar utilitarian objections, which are themselves refuted by the empirical evidence.===================================Gun Control and Public HealthAuthors:Source:Public Health Policy and Ethics, Boylan, Michael (ed), 119-134.Publication Information:Dordrecht: Kluwer ; Dordrecht: Springer ; 2004.Document Type:ContributionSubjects:Abstract:This essay will explore the way we should think about the ethical and public health implications of gun control in the United States of America today. The generating pedagogy will be: (1) An explication of worldview perspectives--both personal and community as per the author's recently published writings. (2) A discussion of the worldviews of both sides of the gun control debate. (3) A critical appraisal of the positions of each side. (4) Some suggestions about a future that is without ordinary citizen ownership of guns. This future would deny ordinary citizens their right to bear arms because this right is superseded by a more fundamental right that is connected to the public health of the United States.
Gun Control
Authors:
Source:
A Companion to Applied Ethics: Blackwell
Companions to Philosophy, Frey, R
G (ed), 192-209.
Publication Information:
Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing ; 2003.
================================
Gun Control
Authors:
Source:
Ethics: An International
Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy, 110(2), 263-281. 19 p. January 2000.
Document Type:
Journal Article
Subjects:
Abstract:
Many of us assume we must either oppose or support gun
control. However, the issue is more complex: we must decide who can own
which guns, under what conditions. Although I cannot provide a
definitive account in this essay, I do isolate the central issues and offer the
broad outlines of a solution. I first identify and then assess arguments and
empirical evidence for and against gun control. I then propose an
alternate scheme which should achieve many of the aims of gun control
advocates, without being unduly intrusive.
ISSN:
===============================
not on gun control per se, but a fascinating article:
ReplyDeleteGiven, Brian J. "Zen Handgun: Sports Ritual and Experience." Journal of Ritual Studies 7, no. 1 Winter (1993): 139-61.
Beyond what you've listed above, there's also an article by Michael Huemer (2003) called "Is There a Right to Own a Gun?" It's in Social Theory and Practice, 29, no. 2: 297-324. I'm using that article in conjunction with the (2000) LaFollette article and the (2011) Dixon article. The LaFollette piece is mandatory, I would think, because every post-2000 article on gun control I have read cites his article regarding some important point. That article also does a good job of sketching the general moral terrain with regard to the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe Huemer article is available online here
ReplyDeletehttp://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/guncontrol.htm
I haven't myself done a class on gun control because in the part of the world I live gun control is a non-issue - political and popular support for continued gun control is so rock solid that it would be political suicide for any party to push for a deregulation policy.
Does anyone know of any applied ethics pieces that argue for the permission to carry non-firearm weapons in public? E.g. mace.
Jeff McMahan's "Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough" is a brief text for the NYT but could be useful for a short discussion segment:
ReplyDeletehttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/why-gun-control-is-not-enough/
This is great, thank you. I used McMahan's "Why 'Gun control' is not enough" as a springboard for discussion in a contemporary moral problems class last week and found it very useful. He argues for a ban on private possession of guns. I looked high and low for an equally short and accessible counterpoint to that position, but couldn't find anything perfect. Best I could find: Sam Harris, "Why I own guns" (http://theweek.com/article/index/239174/why-i-own-guns)
ReplyDelete"The Riddle of the Gun": http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun
ReplyDelete