With each mass shooting the gun debate ignites again, in an endless circular dance. Some people see such horrific events as evidence in favor of new gun regulation. Others quickly head off attempts to act.
Some think it odd that I, an allegedly liberal philosophy professor, am pro-gun. The psychological casual explanation for this is easy: I was shaped by my pro-gun upbringing. I learned to shoot as soon as I could hold a gun, I hunted for years, and I am still a gun owner. I enjoy shooting and I feel comfortable with guns. I feel uncomfortable around people with guns who have no grasp of basic gun safety—an encounter that sometimes happens at the range. But how I feel about guns should not determine what I should believe about guns and gun control.
Gun control, the limiting of gun ownership, can be supported by a very reasonable utilitarian argument. By restricting gun ownership, the likelihood of people getting injured or killed by guns is reduced. While limiting gun rights can be seen as a harm, this is supposed to be offset by the greater reduction in harm to the potential victims of guns (or people with guns if you prefer).
Because of the utilitarian argument, I accept that some gun control laws can be morally justified. However, there is the question of the extent to which gun rights should be limited (if at all). There are varying degrees of gun control ranging from none to complete gun control in which gun ownership is forbidden.
In the United States, people often see gun rights as special rather than in terms of general principles about right. On the right, gun ownership is sometimes venerated and defended with zealous devotion. On the left, guns are sometimes seen as inherently terrifying. I, however, follow a general principle that can be used to sort out what should be allowed and what should be restricted.
As noted above, the main argument for restricting gun rights is to reduce harm. This is based on the more general principle that rights or liberties can be restricted under the justification of reducing harm. As such, it would seem useful to discuss gun rights in this general context.
Given that the goal of gun control is to reduce harm, it might be tempting to argue in favor of complete gun control or at least strict restrictions. The general principle is that a ban or strict restrictions would be justified by significant harm reduction. While this does have some appeal, it needs to be considered in a broader context.
If the goal is to reduce harm, then gun control would be low on the list of things that should be restricted. After all, far more people perish due to automobiles, tobacco, alcohol and obesity than die in incidents of gun violence. As such, if guns should be restricted to reduce harm, then automobiles should also be restricted more because they do much more harm. Also, poor health choices create massive harm, so regulation of food and exercise would be justified by this general principle. While some do advocate this regulation, most see these as absurd. However, if banning Big Macs and cars seems absurd, then banning guns would also seem absurd.
But it can be argued there are relevant differences between gun control and such things as strict automobile and obesity control. In the case of obesity, it can be argued that a person who is obese is primarily hurting themself (although general obesity does harm everyone). If people have a right of self-harm while not having the liberty to harm others, then the distinction is easy to make. Except, obviously, for suicide by gun—if slow suicide by obesity should not be restricted, then quick suicide by gun would also be a liberty. Using a right to self-harm, one might argue that suicide deaths involving guns should be morally distinct from homicides involving guns.
In the case of automobiles, it is tempting to argue that automobile deaths are accidents while gun deaths are intentional. However, there are accidental deaths involving guns and intentional deaths involving automobiles A vehicle can be used as a very effective weapon, albeit one that is hard to conceal.
A more plausible option is a utilitarian approach: while severely restricting automobiles would lower death and injury tolls (not to mention reducing pollution and perhaps encouraging exercise), the utility of the automobile provides an adequate offset against the harms arising from automotive liberty.
Unlike cars, it could be argued that guns lack adequate utility to morally justify the harm they cause. After all, guns are mainly used for entertainment such as hunting and target shooting. While they are sometimes used for survival hunting or protection against animal or human threats, these benefits are offset by the harm of allowing gun rights or liberties.
Naturally, when making the calculation of harms and benefits, if the entertainment value of guns is to be discounted or dismissed, then the same must be done for automobiles and anything else. This would include pool ownership. While pools are mainly for amusement, they cause numerous drowning deaths every year. This would also apply to tobacco, which has no practical benefit and is used solely for pleasure, despite the fact that it harms the user and those exposed to the secondhand smoke. It could even apply to junk food, snacks and desserts—these are consumed for pleasure rather than any health benefit yet are major contributors to obesity. It could even be argued that these harmful products are inflicted on people (by advertising and subsidies that make them cheaper than healthy food) and thus they could be seen as a form of attack.
Interestingly, if the restriction of guns is based on arguing that they are primarily entertainment and lack suitable utility, then the same line of reasoning can be used to restrict automotive rights. After all, if the enjoyment of target shooting does not justify the liberty to use a gun for this purpose, then the enjoyment of driving would not justify the liberty to drive. So, if automotive liberty is warranted in the face of death and injury on utilitarian grounds then then it is reasonable to restrict automotive usage to utility, such as transporting heavy items over a long distance. Merely driving around for amusement or to go someplace to be amused, such as a movie, would not warrant putting oneself and others at risk of death and injury.
Of course, gun defenders will argue that guns are not primarily for amusement. Rather, they would point to their essential role in protection, perhaps against scary minorities or communists. There is also the argument that private ownership of guns provides a balance against the compulsive power of the state. An unarmed population is only free at the discretion of the armed, which is a rather uncertain sort of freedom. After all, we did see the pro-gun groups rush out to counter the flooding of cities with ICE and the National Guard just as they promised. At least we might have in some possible world in another timeline.
The stock counter is that people are safer without guns and that the state can generally be trusted not to oppress the people to a degree that would necessitate armed resistance. These are, of course, factual matters—but not uncontroversial ones. After all, people will point to the few cases where someone defended themselves and others with their guns. And we do see the Trump regime flooding the streets of American cities with ICE to allegedly do crimes against people and inflict terror on the population.
It can be said that it would be a better world without any weapons. This might be true, but it would also be a much better world if no one was willing to hurt anyone else and these seem equally likely to come about.
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.