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:
Journal: Criminal Justice EthicsVolume 20, Issue 1, January 2001, pages 17-18
Journal: Criminal Justice EthicsVolume 20, Issue 1, January 2001, pages 19-24
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.
A Companion to Applied Ethics: Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, Frey, R G (ed), 192-209.
Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing ; 2003.================================
Ethics: An International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy, 110(2), 263-281. 19 p. January 2000.
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.