3

moodboard/Thinkstock

Gun Ownership and the Second

Amendment
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
Explain the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and some of the
debates over its interpretation.
Analyze the arguments in favor of increased restrictions on gun ownership and
the arguments against any such restrictions.
Identify fallacies, such as the slippery slope, that are sometimes committed in
the debate over gun control.
Apply specific ethical theoriesutilitarianism and relativismto the debate
over gun control.
Identify some of the policy solutions proposed by U.S. lawmakers and advocacy groups in the wake of mass shootings.

mos85880_03_c03.indd 73

10/28/13 3:34 PM

CHAPTER 3

Section 3.1 The Second Amendment

Introduction

ew issues in contemporary American politics have generated more informed

debateas well as name calling, anger, and insultsthan these kinds of questions:

Should Americans be able to own guns?

If so, what kinds of guns should they be able to possess?
Are there any limits to the kinds of guns Americans should be able to possess?
What are the consequences of guns in American society?
Does gun ownership lead to a safer society?
Does gun ownership lead to a more dangerous society?

In this chapter, we will examine these questions and the arguments that make up this
debate, including those who call for virtually no restrictions on the ownership of guns, as
well as those who call for a virtual ban on individual gun ownership. As we will also see,
there is a wide variety of views within these extremes.
We can begin our look at how ethics can shed light on these issues by looking at the Second Amendment itself.

3.1 The Second Amendment

he Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States read as follows:

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.

This amendment has generated enormous controversy, in terms of what rights are really
specified here, and what limitations, if any, should be placed on gun ownership. Here we
will examine the gun control argument, and then see the perspectives brought to this issue
by the utilitarian and the ethical relativist.

Straight to the Source

The History of the Second Amendment
In this article, Law Professor David E. Vandercoy presents some of the history of the Second Amendment, from its basis in English law up to the drafting and ratification of the Amendment.
Vandercoy summarizes his conclusion as follows:
English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of
arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens.
(continued)

mos85880_03_c03.indd 74

10/28/13 1:21 PM

Section 3.1 The Second Amendment

CHAPTER 3

Straight to the Source (continued)

More details can be found in his article from the Valparaiso University Law Review:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html.
In sharp contrast to Professor Vandercoys views, Law Professor Carl Bogus presents a different
reading of the history of the Second Amendment. Bogus summarizes his conclusion as follows:
The Second Amendment was not enacted to provide a check on government tyranny; rather, it was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not
undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority
over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the Souths principal instrument of slave control.
More details can be found in his article from the University of California at Davis Law Review:
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm.

The Issue: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Gun ownership has been regarded as a right, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, since the
founding of the United States. Here we look at a traditional interpretation of that right, as
stated in the Second Amendment.

The Argument Against Restrictions

The Constitution of the United Statesspecifically the Second Amendment, which outlines the specific right for the people to keep and bear armsis quite clear. That right
simply cannot be infringed, or taken away. Just as the other rights enumerated in the Bill
of Rights are guaranteed by the Constitutionfreedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of assemblythe right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken away from the
people who live under the Constitution and its amendments (which includes, of course,
the Bill of Rights). Fundamentally, there is no further argument needed: The right to keep
and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right, and that is sufficient to establish that
there should be few restrictions on gun ownership. Any such restrictions on gun ownership would have to meet the kind of requirements one might put on free speech: an overriding public interest, where the good of the vast majority of the public requires some
restrictions. But those restrictions must be absolutely minimal and must be shown to be
absolutely necessary. Both the law and common morality have found, in very few cases,
a need to limit free speech: generally in order to guarantee public safety. In the same way,
any restrictions on gun possession must be shown to meet that very high standard, and to
be an unavoidable threat to the general public without those restrictions.

mos85880_03_c03.indd 75

10/28/13 1:21 PM

CHAPTER 3

Section 3.1 The Second Amendment

This constitutional protection is in itself sufficient

to show that gun ownership is a right that should
have few, if any, restrictions. But the history of
the United States also gives substantial support
for the right of private citizens to own guns without interference from local, state, or federal agencies. Americans have long owned guns and have
regarded possession of guns to be a right as well
as a necessity. After all, the Revolutionary War
was won by those who were comfortable with,
and qualified to use, guns. Americans enjoy target shooting, skeet shooting, and other types of
sport shooting. Many Americans hunt for sport,
while others depend upon hunting as an important source of food. Americans should be allowed
to own weapons to protect themselves and their
families. The Founding Fathers recognized that
gun ownership was one part of the very idea of
iStockphoto/Thinkstock America: self-defense against the kind of tyranny the American Revolution overthrew. Since
Many Americans own guns for legitimate,
that time, the right of Americans to defend themlegal reasons, including for sport and/or
selves, their families, and their homes has been
protection.
recognized as legitimate and justified. Americans
are estimated to own some 250 million guns, and more than 25% of Americans live in a
household that possesses a firearm.

Figure 3.1: Gun control law poll

100

Percent

80

60

55%
Favor

44%
Oppose

40

20

1%
No opinion

CNN/ORC International Data conducted: 1/14/20131/15/2013

Sample: 814 adult Americans Margin of error: +/ 3.5% pts.
Source: Based on data from CNN/ORC International

mos85880_03_c03.indd 76

10/28/13 1:21 PM

CHAPTER 3

Section 3.1 The Second Amendment

Reasonable people may disagree with what kinds of restrictions can be placed on gun
ownership. For instance, it seems reasonable to prevent those with a documented history
of criminal violence, such as those convicted of committing violent felonies, from possessing firearms. It may also be reasonable to prevent those with a documented history
of substantial mental illness to possess deadly weapons. But it must be recognized, given
the historical expectation of Americans to have the right to possess firearms, and the constitutional protection of that right, that any such restrictions must be minimal and shown
to be necessary for public safety. Otherwise, small restrictions lead to a slippery slope
situation where, in the end, the meaning of the Second Amendment is ignored and unjust
restrictions are imposed on law-abiding citizens.
To impose such restrictions is not only unconstitutional but also seems to disarm precisely
those citizens who have a legitimate interest in, and need for, gun ownership. After all,
criminals are not going to be worried about whether their guns are possessed legally. To
require the law-abiding to conform to onerous and time-consuming gun laws, or even, in
some cases, to prevent gun ownership at all, is to produce the indefensible situation where
guns are more likely to be possessed by criminals than by the citizens who need to protect
themselves from those criminals.

U.S. Gun Ownership

A Snapshot
As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people.
Based on production data from firearm manufacturers, there are roughly 300 million firearms
owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns
(Agresti & Smith, 2013). Table 3.1 shows the shifting attitudes behind gun ownership among owners surveyed in 1999 and those surveyed in 2013.
American Households With a Gun: 4753 million (4045%)
Adults Owning a Gun: 7080 million (3034%)
Adults Owning a Handgun: 4045 million (1719%)

Table 3.1: Why do you own a gun?

Among gun owners

Aug 1999
%

Feb 2013

Change

Protection

26

48

+22

Hunting

49

32

17

Target/sport
shooting

Constitutional
right/ 2nd
amendment

(continued)

mos85880_03_c03.indd 77

10/28/13 1:21 PM

CHAPTER 3

Section 3.1 The Second Amendment

U.S. Gun Ownership (continued)

Collect guns/hobby
Other
Dont know

Aug 1999
4
10

100

Feb 2013

Change

1
100

PEW RESEARCH CENTER. Feb. 1318, 2013. Based on those who personally own a gun. August 1999 data from ABC News/
Washington Post. Figures may not add to 100% because of rounding.

Source: Used by permission of Pew Research Center.

The Argument for Restrictions

In 2005, 16,692 people were murdered in America, 14,860 of them
(89%) with guns (Department of
Justice, 2006). Some of the history
of gun-related violence in America
is well known. Two students at Columbine High School killed 12 students and one teacher. At Virginia
Tech University, a single gunman
killed 32 and injured many more.
In the area around Washington,
D.C., two men killed 10 and injured
many others. While these tragedies
are remembered, many others, such
as mass killings in Dover, Arkansas
Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press
(16 people killed), in Wilkes-Barre,
Some worry that lax gun control laws result in more gunPennsylvania (13 killed), and Geneva
related violence.
County, Alabama (11 killed, including the murderer) are forgotten. The
United States has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the developed world; thus,
the rate of death by firearm for those younger than 14 is nearly 12 times higher in the
United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. The New York Times
writer Bob Herbert summarizes the issue:
Since the assassinations of Senator Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther
King Jr. in 1968, more than a million Americans have been killed by guns
in the U.S. Thats more than the total number of U.S. combat deaths in all
the wars in American history. (Herbert, 2007)

mos85880_03_c03.indd 78

10/28/13 1:21 PM

CHAPTER 3

Section 3.1 The Second Amendment

Although gun violence happens on a regular basis, large-scale massacres draw the most
attention and the loudest calls for more stringent gun laws. Table 3.2 lists some of the
worst gun massacres in the United States.

Table 3.2: The top five worst gun massacres in recent U.S. history

1
2

Perpetrator
Seung-Hui Cho (aged 23,
suicide at scene)
Adam Lanza (aged 20,
suicide at scene)

George Hennard (aged

35, suicide at scene)

James Oliver Huberty

(aged 42, shot at scene
by police)

Nidal Malik Hasan (age

39, arrested at scene)

Location
Blacksburg, Virginia
(university campus)
Newtown,
Connecticut (Sandy
Hook Elementary
School )
Killeen, Texas
(restaurant)
San Diego,
California
(McDonalds
restaurant)
Fort Hood, Texas
(military base)

Date
April 16th, 2007
Dec 14th, 2012

Victims
32 killed (25
wounded)
27 killed (2
wounded)

Oct 16th, 1991

23 killed (20
wounded)

July 18th, 1984

21 killed (19
wounded)

Nov 5th, 2009

13 killed (29
wounded)

Between the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School (December 14, 2012) and March
7, 2013, there were at least 2,500 gun-related homicides and accidental deaths (Kirk &
Kois, 2013).
Not only are there many guns in the United States, but they are also easy to get. Sales at
gun shows and private sales may be carried out with minimal or no background checks;
in some states a person can buy a rifle or shotgun every month at the age of 12. Even
though some minimal background checks and waiting periods have been put in force,
some organizations have objected to these restrictions as imposing an undue burden on
gun ownership. Those who argue for minimal or no restrictions insist that the public is
safer if anyone, at any time, can decide to buy a gun and do so at that time. Lax gun laws
and an increasing demand for being able to carry concealed weapons means that it is easy
for law-abiding citizens and criminals to obtain such weapons. This has led to a culture
in the United States that leadsby a wide marginthe developed world in violent crime
and murder. To prevent this growth, reasonable restrictionsrequiring substantial background checks, waiting periods, and trigger locks, as well as limits on the kinds of weapons and ammunition that can be soldare necessary. It should be noted that the 1980s and
1990s saw an increase in controls put on gun ownership, which coincided with a drop in
violent crime.
Finally, some have argued that the 1939 Supreme Court decision United States v. Miller
interprets the Second Amendment as extending the right to bear arms to well-regulated
militias onlynot individuals. Thus, the Second Amendment, on this interpretation, does
not provide for virtually unrestricted gun ownership for private citizens. Even though
a later Supreme Court decision seems to conflict with this decision, there is substantial
support for the idea that the Second Amendment should not be interpreted as referring
to individuals.

mos85880_03_c03.indd 79

10/28/13 1:21 PM

CHAPTER 3

Section 3.1 The Second Amendment

Supporting substantial restrictions should not be regarded as an illegitimate attempt by

an oppressive government to seize all guns. As the Founding Fathers recognized, a wellregulated militia is sufficient to prevent the kind of tyranny they fought against. Background checks, trigger locks, and limits on some kinds of weapons and ammunition do
not prevent the law-abiding citizen from possessing the appropriate kinds of guns for
sport shooting, hunting, and home protection. They do, however, minimize the possibility
of criminals, the insane, and others who should not have access to deadly weapons from
obtaining them. They also indicate that a civilized society should have much less violence,
and many fewer murders, than does the United States. This is why many police organizations and police chiefs support such restrictions. Still, as Figure 3.2 shows, only a small
minority of law enforcement officials believes that an outright ban of assault weapons
would have much of an overall effect on violent crime, while an overwhelming majority
believes it would have no effect at all.

Figure 3.2: Poll of law enforcement professionals on the effect of banning assault
weapons on violent crime
Significant 1.6%
Moderate 6%
None 71%
Negative 20.5%
Unsure 0.9%

What effect do you think a federal ban on the manufacture

and sale of some semiautomatic firearms, termed by some as
assault weapons, would have on reducing violent crime?

This response was provided in a poll of over 15,000 law enforcement professionals.
Source: Based on data from PoliceOnes Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey, conducted between March 4 and March 13, 2013. www.
policeone.com

While those who oppose restrictions on gun rights often appeal to an interpretation of
the landmark case United States v. Miller, mentioned above, we should also consider the
words of Justice William O. Douglas (and Thurgood Marshall), who dissented in a 1972
case (Adams v. Williams) that referred to Miller:

mos85880_03_c03.indd 80

10/28/13 1:21 PM

Section 3.1 The Second Amendment

CHAPTER 3

The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S., upholding a federal law
making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia. Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was
held, must be interpreted and applied with the view of maintaining a
militia.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in
contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent *140 of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and
laws could be secured through the Militiacivilians primarily, soldiers on
occasion. Id., at 178179.
Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment.
Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted,
was designed to keep alive the militia. (Volokh, n.d.)

Two Slippery Slope Arguments

Arguments are described as committing a slippery slope fallacy when they a reasonable
claim and then extend it to an absurd extreme. For instance, if Zachary decides, reasonably
enough, that he wont be stopped for speeding if he goes one mile over the speed limit,
he might then conclude that two miles is also safe. But if two miles is safe, why not three?
Five? 10? 15? Suddenly, Zachary is driving 20 miles over the speed limit on the basis of a
slippery slope he has created; often the idea is presented by the phrase, Give em an inch,
they will take a mile. The idea behind the fallacy of the slippery slope here is that safe
is a bit ambiguous, but one who depends on that ambiguity to justify driving 55 miles an
hour in a 35 mile an hour zone will soon find herself pulled over by the authorities.
These arguments can be difficult do deal with, at times, because of the ambiguity of the
words involved. Bob may have a reasonably full head of hair; if he takes one hair away, he
still has a full head of hair. If he takes two, 10, 50, 100 away, we will still have a reasonably
full head of hair. But at some point, one can take away enough of Bobs hair that he would
be regarded as bald. But it is notoriously difficult to determine what that point is.
These kinds of arguments can, on occasion, be found in the debate over guns and gun
control. Both arguments start with plausible claims, but end up with results that might
seem, at least to most people, preposterous. The challenge is to determine at what point a
reasonable claim becomes unreasonable; presumably, that is where the focus should be of
those disagreeing over this issue.

mos85880_03_c03.indd 81

10/28/13 1:21 PM

Section 3.1 The Second Amendment

CHAPTER 3

Argument One: Ban Private Possession of All Guns

We all know that people should not be allowed to have their own nuclear weapons; that
would be ridiculous. But no one would really advocate allowing private citizens to own
tanks, or heat-seeking missiles, or a grenade launcher, or a sniper cannon. Since we have
already outlawed fully automatic weapons in the United States, we should outlaw semiautomatic weapons in the United States also, both because semiautomatics are easily
converted to fully automatic weapons, and because the maximum rate of fire for some
semiautomatics is as high as 40 rounds per minute. Any gun that can shoot too many
rounds per minute should be banned; no one needs or should have such a weapon. Ten
rounds a minute is too many; so is five rounds a minute. Indeed, all such weapons can
be used to harm others, and since any weapon that provides lethal firepower is designed
to harm others, all such weapons should be banned. Furthermore, countries that have
banned all personal weapons have much lower rates of murder and other violent crimes.
So we should ban the private possession of all guns.
For a more sophisticated version of this argument, search for Jeff McMahans Why Gun
Control Is Not Enough at www.nytimes.com.
Argument Two: Any Restriction on Private Ownership of Guns Is Unlawful
The Second Amendment says that the the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed (U.S. Const. amend. II). It does not specify which arms it has in mind,
nor does it say that some arms can be kept. Thus it is a right to bear arms, period. While
compromises have been made, such as a general acceptance of banning automatic weapons, this has led to calls for banning semiautomatic weapons, as well as high-capacity
ammunition magazines. But what is high capacity? If a magazine carries 100 hundred
rounds, is that too large? Why not 50, then 30? As soon as classes of weapons are banned,
as well as other reasonable accessories such as magazine clips, the right to bear weapons
that can carry 10 rounds will be eliminated. Eventually, as one can see, the government
will seek to ban weapons that carry even one round, and thus will seek to deny the rights
of citizens to bear any kind of gun. Allowing this right to be abridged at all will lead to the
elimination of the right to possess guns, and the confiscation of guns already owned by
law-abiding citizens. Thus, no regulations should be in place on gun ownership.
For a more sophisticated version of this argument, search for Larry Bells The Slippery
Slope of Gun Control: Time to Stand on Firm Ground at www.forbes.com.

The Reasonable Middle Ground

The results of these two arguments present the extreme positions involved in the gun
debate. One extreme is to ban all private ownership of guns, entirely; the other is to eliminate any current or potential restrictions or regulations on gun ownership. It is generally
rarealthough not impossibleto find many politicians or pundits advocating the banning of private gun ownership entirely. It is relatively common to find those who argue
that introducing any restrictions may well result in the ban on such ownership in general.
While most of those who engage in this debate fall between advocating the elimination
of gun ownership or the eliminating all regulations, it is worth identifying these extremes

mos85880_03_c03.indd 82

10/28/13 1:21 PM

Section 3.2 Applying the Theories

CHAPTER 3

in order to set limits to the debate. Presumably few who are suspicious of gun control
think people should have nuclear weapons; hence, they are in favor some regulations. At
the same time, few who argue in favor of various gun-control measures are not proposing that no private citizen in the United States can possess a weapon; hence, they are in
favor of some gun ownership. Thus, what needs to be the focus of the discussion is what
regulations are reasonable: Is it reasonable to have a waiting period? Is it reasonable to
require all those selling gunswhether at a gun shop or a gun showto require that waiting period, or a background check? Should we do what we can in order not to sell guns
to suspected terrorists, or those who have a systematic history of violent and/or criminal
behavior? The debate, in other words, may be more productive if those on both sides of
that debate recognize that people can own guns, and that there will be some regulations.
Using that as a starting point, perhaps useful conversations can begin regarding what
kinds of weapons are reasonable to own, what kinds of weapons should be restricted
or even highly regulated, and what kinds of weapons should be prohibited. This wont
guarantee agreement, of course, but it will allow all parties in the dispute to recognize that
there is some common ground from which to begin, and to focus their attention on what
restrictions and regulations can provide both security for those who own guns and those
who do not, and a higher level of safety in our communities.

3.2 Applying the Theories

s you may already realize, two ethicists may adopt the same ethical theory, yet
disagree about how that theory is to be applied or what result that theory indicates
is morally correct. Here, we will look at one way to apply a utilitarian argument
to see how it supports the view that only the most minimal restrictions of gun ownership
should be supported. However, it should be clear that not all utilitariansjust because
they are utilitarianswould accept this result. We will contrast the utilitarian view with
the perspective put forth by the relativist.

Utilitarian
For any community, one of the fundamental requirements of the government that runs that
community is to maintain the security and safety of its citizens. Both potentially violent
intruders and oppressive governments that arise from within the community or threaten
it from outside pose dangers to the security every citizen rightfully expects. The utilitarian argument against restrictive gun laws is simply to point out that most people see the
greatest happiness, or utility, by being more confident that they are safe. Having weapons
that one can use to defend oneself, against an individual or a tyrannical form of government, helps ensure that safety. A simple example makes this clear: If an intruder considers
robbing your home, and possibly hurting you or your family, this action brings with it certain benefits (whatever money and goods the robber steals) and certain risks (the danger
the robber may confront). This costbenefit analysis changes, dramatically, if the robber
considers that you might be armed. The benefits remain the same, but the risks increase
quite a bit. If the robber believes, or even thinks it possible, that you are armed and pose
a sufficient risk to him, he may well not rob you, either going to another house (one he
is more confident does not have such weapons) or just giving up his robbery lifestyle
entirely. Generalized, then, people with weaponsand who, of course, are skilled at using

mos85880_03_c03.indd 83

10/28/13 1:21 PM

Section 3.2 Applying the Theories

CHAPTER 3

themwill feel safer in their homes. The added advantage is that if potential criminals
are not sure who does, and who doesnt, have such weapons, then it becomes less likely
that the crime will occur, assuming one doesnt want to risk being shot or killed. If the
assumption, in other words, is that people can defend themselveseven though it may
not be clear who does and who doesnt have the weapons in questionthen the entire
community increases its level of security, thus increasing its level of happiness. Restricting the possession of weapons thus leads to greater insecurity, decreasing the security
of the citizens (and so decreasing the happiness of those citizens). Therefore, utility will
be maximized by having the fewest restrictions put on gun ownership. Minimizing the
restrictions on gun ownership generates the greatest good for the greatest number and is,
therefore, the correct thing to do. From this, it follows that any such restrictions must be
shown to be required to increase public safety and security; thus, one might argue that
such a standard is met by preventing those with histories of violence, or serious mental
disorders, from possessing deadly weapons. While we havent included here the additional utility, or happiness, gained by allowing relatively unrestricted access to guns for
hunting and sport shooting, including those considerations simply increases the utility of
gun ownership, and thus strengthens the argument against restrictive gun controls.

Be the Ethicist
Utilitarians for Gun Control?
If gun control is an inalienable right, one really doesnt need to provide a utilitarian argument to
defend that right, although one can help defend that it is such a right by using utilitarian reasoning.
(Of course, one could still examine what kinds of guns, and weapons in general, fall under this right,
and what restrictions, if any, are legitimate.) Weve just seen a utilitarian argument against increasing rules and regulations on gun ownership.
But it is worth considering what a utilitarian argument for increased restrictions might look like.
Here is a very brief version of such an argument:
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 denying people the right to
own guns can be taken as a harm, this is supposed to be offset by the greater
reduction in harms to the potential victims of guns (or people with guns). (LaBossiere, 2012)
Having read this short argument for increased restrictions on gun ownership, consider the following
questions:
Would reducing gun ownership reduce the number of people who are killed by guns?
Which is a bigger threat to people, the government or criminals with access to guns?
Why do other developed countries, such as those in Western Europe and Japan, have such
a lower homicide rate?
Is there a connection between the homicide rate in the United States and the availability
of guns?
Does private ownership of guns do more good or more harm to the citizens of the United
States, taken as a whole?

mos85880_03_c03.indd 84

10/28/13 1:21 PM

Section 3.2 Applying the Theories

CHAPTER 3

Relativist
The relativist recognizes that different societies have different histories, different notions
of rights, and different approaches to gun ownership. It may be quite rare to know someone in Nigeria, or the Philippines, who owns a gun; the per capita gun ownership rate in
Nigeria is approximately 1% (one gun for every 100 people), and approximately 4.5% in
the Philippines. In contrast, Switzerland has a gun ownership rate of about 50% (one gun
for every two Swiss). The United States has, by far, the highest rate, with 90 guns for every
100 people. Some countries, or cultures, may have very few guns because guns havent
played a particularly important part in that cultures history; some may have very few
guns because the government prohibits private ownership of firearms. In contrast, some
cultures may have a long tradition of hunting and a history in which guns played a significant role, as in the westward expansion of the United States (Completing the Count, 2007).

Gun Ownership and Homicide Worldwide

It is worth comparing how many guns are owned in various countries and the violent crime rate
particularly homicidein those countries. One study drew these conclusions (in 2007):
The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the worldan average of 88 per
100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership, and even the number two
country, Yemen, has significantly fewer54.8 per 100 people.
But the United States does not have the worst firearm murder ratethat prize belongs to
Honduras, El Salvador, and Jamaica. In fact, the United States is number 28, with a rate of
2.97 per 100,000 people.
Puerto Rico tops the worlds table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides
94.8%. Its followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean.
(Completing the Count, 2007)

The relativist simply sees these values as relative to a given culture. One society may have
a lot of guns; another may have very few: neither is right (or wrong), but a community standard has emerged within that society. The United States cant really object to a
country like England, where few people own guns, gun control laws are very extensive,
and, traditionally, even the police (called bobbies) dont carry such weapons. In the
same way, the English cant object to the approach adopted currently in the United States,
where gun ownership is very high.
Within a given society, however, it is more difficult to see what the relativist position
offers. Consider Theresa and Bill: Theresa has a number of guns and thinks there should
be few if any restrictions on gun ownership. Bill has no guns and thinks private citizens
should not be able to possess guns for any reason. Theresa sometimes wonders what Bill
would do were he attacked in his home, whereas Bill is unwilling to let his children play
with Theresas children because of the number of guns in her house. Is there anything the
relativist can say, beyond identifying the views of Theresa and Bill?

mos85880_03_c03.indd 85

10/28/13 1:21 PM

Section 3.3 School Shootings and Responses

CHAPTER 3

This does not, of course, prevent the relativist from arguing for better enforcement of gun
laws or, from his or her own perspective, for more (or fewer) restrictions on gun ownership. But it isnt clear how disagreements, such as that between Theresa and Bill, can be
resolved from the perspective of relativism.
It is, obviously enough, difficult to establish laws, policies, and other forms of legislation
on the basis of relativism. Of course, a community may have a viewpoint that can be easily identified; presumably, the laws of that community should reflect that viewpoint. But
what if a town in a given state thinks not just that everyone should have guns, but should
actually be required to own one, while the majority of voters in the state favor restrictive
gun control? Whose view should determine policy here, the town or the state? This kind
of conflict is familiar in those circumstances where the majority of an individual states
citizens appear to hold a view that opposes the majority of the countrys citizens; it is not
clear how relativism can help resolve these kinds of conflicts. Furthermore, if something
whether free speech or bearing armsis in fact a right, then it would seem to be exempt
from a majority abridging that right.

3.3 School Shootings and Responses

mericans were shocked to hear of the December 2012 school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, when 20 children and six adults were shot to death; the gunman, Adam Lanza, had already fatally shot his mother, and ultimately took his
own life. This was the second-worst elementary school mass murder in American history;
many are surprised to discover that the worst took place in 1927, when 38 students and
six adults were killed by a school bombing in Bath, Michigan.

The depth of the tragedy at Newtown, and the ages of the very young
children involved, renewed public
debate over what could be done to
prevent such shootings. Some, of
course, argued that relatively little
could be done; Lanza had no criminal record, and the guns he used were
obtained legally. As was noted, in a
free society, members of that society
recognize that with those freedoms
come certain risks. If we have free
speech, we run the risk of hearing
speech that we deplore; if we have
Jessica Hill/Associated Press freedom of religion, we may well
encounter those with religious views
The tragic school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary
School sparked much political debate over the issue of gun that oppose our own. Similarly, if we
laws.
have the right to bear arms, occasionally somesuch as Adam Lanza
will act in a way that causes a nation to grieve. But that risk is seen by many as unavoidable in a society that seeks to promote freedom with a reasonable expectation of security.

mos85880_03_c03.indd 86

10/28/13 1:21 PM

Section 3.3 School Shootings and Responses

CHAPTER 3

A state can be more secure, but if the costs of that security are the restrictions of our rights
and freedoms, many see those costs as too high.

Case Study
The Newtown Shooting
On December 14th, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, Adam Lanza shot and killed his mother, and
then went to Sandy Hook Elementary School, where he shot and killed 26 people, including 20 firstgraders, and wounded two others.
Because of the horrific nature of this crime and the ages of most of the victims, the issue of gun
laws became the focus of much political debate. Utilizing the slogan, the greatest good for the
greatest number, how might a utilitarian evaluate current gun laws? Would a utilitarian propose
stricter gun laws, or less strict gun laws? And why would the utilitarian come to this conclusion?
After considering how a utilitarian might respond to these general questions, consider how a utilitarian might respond to the following questions:
When discussing the greatest number in terms of the Newtown shooting, who is
included?
Does this include just those who attended Sandy Hook Elementary School and their
families?
Does this include the citizens of Newtown? The citizens of Connecticut? The citizens of the
United States?
How does one determine who is affected by seeking to produce the greatest number for
the greatest good?
Does the number of those affected change the way one applies utilitarianism?
In contrast, a relativist might argue that gun laws should be determined relative to the values of
those who are affected by any proposed legislation. Again, in trying to identify what those values
are, who is included? Does this include just those who attended Sandy Hook Elementary School and
their families? Does this include the citizens of Newtown? The citizens of Connecticut? The citizens
of the United States?
Finally, consider a discussion of proposed laws on gun ownership between John and Joan. John,
arguing from what he regards as a utilitarian perspective, proposes stricter gun controls, including
bans on certain kinds of weapons and limiting magazine capacities to 10 rounds. He defends his
view by claiming that these restrictions would generate the greatest good for his community, by
making that community safer for all who live there. Joan, in contrast, argues that the members of
her community will be safer, and thus happier, with broad access to weapons and fewer restrictions
on gun ownership; this will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number in her community.
Thus, Joan also regards her argument as one coming from the perspective of utilitarianism.
How do you think John and Joan can resolve their dispute? More generally, how could two utilitarians deal with the kind of disagreement that arises here? Finally, is this a general difficulty that might
indicate certain in-principle problems for utilitarianism?

mos85880_03_c03.indd 87

10/28/13 1:21 PM

Section 3.3 School Shootings and Responses

CHAPTER 3

Proposed Gun Restrictions

Many people saw the Newtown shooting as a call for increased vigilance about guns and
gun control. Citing Newtown and the mass shooting in Arizona that included the serious
wounding of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, many politicians and community groups
argued that these events were the result of guns being too easily available, that restrictions on gun ownership that were applicable were too easy to avoid, and that background
checks were either insufficient or not being done in some situations (due to the so-called
gun show loophole, where private gun sales are not subject to the same regulations as
licensed gun sales). Particular focus was given to assault weapons, a term that is often
used, imprecisely at times, to characterize a number of semiautomatic weapons such as
the MAC-10 and AK-47; debate continues whether the weapon Lanza used (some versions of the Bushmaster AR-15 qualifies as an assault weapon under some legal descriptions of that term). Legislation introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein tried to make the
language more precise, banning the sale, transfer, manufacturing, and importation of the
following weapons:
All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least
one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable
stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at
least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud;
capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol
grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock;
pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket
launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of
accepting more than 10 rounds.
157 specifically-named firearms. (Feinstein, n.d., para. 1)
Two other Senators, Joe Manchin (D-WVA) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) introduced a bill to
expand background checks to gun shows and sales on the Internet, although not requiring
such checks for those selling or giving guns to friends or family. It failed in the Senate 54
to 46.
In spite of these setbacks, advocates of gun control continue to push for what they regard
as reasonable gun control measures, including limiting the size of ammunition magazines
and requiring background checks for all gun sales, including those at gun shows. Arguing
that it seems peculiar that those who are prevented from flyingbecause they are on a list
of suspected terroristsare still able to purchase weapons at gun shows, established gun
control advocacy groups such as the Brady Campaign, as well as the families of the victims of Newtown, continue to promote various regulations on guns and gun accessories.

mos85880_03_c03.indd 88

10/28/13 1:21 PM

Section 3.3 School Shootings and Responses

CHAPTER 3

The Gun-Rights Response

In rather sharp contrast to those
seeing Sandy Hook as indicating a
need for increased gun regulations,
those who object to those restrictions they see as in violation of the
Second Amendment offered much
different responses. Wayne LaPierre,
then Executive Vice President of the
National Rifle Association (NRA),
argued that Sandy Hook showed the
need for increased security, not for
increased gun control. As he stated in
December, 2012:
I call on Congress today, to act
Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/Corbis
immediately to appropriate Pro-gun rights groups argue that there is a need for
whatever is necessary to put increased security rather than increased gun control.
armed police officers in every
single school in this nation.
And, to do it now to make sure that blanket safety is in place when our kids
return to school in January. Before Congress reconvenes, before we engage
in any lengthy debate over legislation, regulation, or anything else, as soon
as our kids return to school after the holiday break, we need to have every
single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven
to work and by that I mean armed security. (Washington Post, 2012)
The group Gun Owners of America (GOA), which describes itself as a no compromise
gun lobby, came out with a more direct response to those who called for gun control after
the Sandy Hook shooting; as Larry Pratt stated on December 15, 2012, [B]lood is on the
hands of members of Congress and the Connecticut legislators who voted to ban guns
from all schools in Connecticut (Pratt, 2012, para. 3).
It is worth noting that while many schools have increased security by either hiring guards,
arming the guards already in place, or hiring more armed guards, at least one school has
begun arming teachers. A school district in Arkansas has approved stipends to purchase
20 guns for teachers and staff, who will be carrying concealed weapons. In defense of this
policy, School Superintendent David Hopkins said, The plan weve been given in the past
is Well, lock your doors, turn off your lights and hope for the best ... thats not a plan
(DeMillio, 2013, para. 5). It is not clear whether this will be a continuing trend; certainly
some education experts reject it. Kenneth Trump, President of National School Safety and
Security Services, sums up the opinions of many in stating that the vast majority of teachers want to be armed with textbooks and computers, not guns (National School Safety
and Security Services, n.d., para. 1).
One other set of responses to the Sandy Hook shooting is notable. Those who object to
gun control, often indicating their concern that gun laws would become stricter, bought a
lot of gun permits, guns, ammunition, and joined such groups as the NRA and GOA. As

mos85880_03_c03.indd 89

10/28/13 1:21 PM

Chapter Summary

CHAPTER 3

noted by Forbes magazine, Gun sales, as measured by FBI background checks, rose 19%
in 2012 to nearly 19.6 million. Sales in December alonethe month in which the Sandy
Hook massacre occurrednearly doubled to 2.8 million (Brown, 2013, para. 5). The NRA
reported that it gained 100,000 new members in the 18 days after the Sandy Hook shooting (Glueck, 2013). Similarly, the Gun Owners Action League, saw a 30 percent increase
in membership since January. Executive Director Jim Wallace said in December [2012]
the organization had about 13,000 members and that number has risen to about 16,000
(OConnell, 2013, para. 12). At the same time, advocates of stricter gun laws saw their
membership numbers grow as well, as did contributions to those groups lobbying on
behalf of such laws:
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has raised about $5 million
since late December [2012], a spokeswoman for the group told POLITICO.
The group announced its fundraising haul after the National Rifle Association told POLITICO it increased its membership by 100,000 following the
Sandy Hook massacre. (Palmer, 2013, para. 12)
As these numbers suggest, school shootings such as the one that occurred at Sandy Hook
galvanize both sides of the debate, generating both funds and members of the opposing
groups. If anything, then, these tragic shootings make the debate that much more intense.

Chapter Summary

thics can be frustratinglike much of philosophybecause it doesnt give us the

kinds of answers that are clear, obvious, and acceptable to everyone. This doesnt
mean that ethics isnt important; indeed, many regard the questions ethics deals
with as the most important of all. It does mean, however, that disagreements will continue, and that it is probably too much to expect that an ethical theory will provide the
kind of result a formula in chemistry might, or the kind of straightforward answer that an
accountant might provide. But getting clearer on the issues, and how ethicists treat those
issues, can certainly help provide a better answer, if not a single, correct answer.
We see here, for instance, that one way of treating the issue of gun control, using utilitarianism, can support the idea that restrictions on gun ownership should be as few as
possible, and that any restrictions we do put in place must meet a very strict standard to
be justified. This follows from a specific conception of what the happiness, or utility, of
a community, consists of. If guns make people feel secure, and that security is essential
to happiness, then the utilitarian might well argue for minimal gun control. But another
utilitarian might take this same conceptionthe need for securityand argue that this
could be better achieved by an absolute ban on all guns; after all, an extremely oppressive
society may well be able to guarantee the security of its citizens. This utilitarian, then,
might argue that if security is the most important thing for citizens, then this might end
up being an argument against a free society, and some utilitarians have argued that an
overemphasis on security may lead to a totalitarian government that exercises complete
control over its citizens. In any case, it is clear that in applying utilitarianism to a specific
issue, it is importantbut often very difficultto determine the happiness, or utility, of

mos85880_03_c03.indd 90

10/28/13 1:21 PM

Key Terms

CHAPTER 3

the citizens who are affected by that issue. Clarifying the goals of a given society can, however, help define what policies are just and what policies might be unjust.
Our discussion may also show that even though relativism may be attractive at first, it is
a difficult theory to apply when making laws. In our example from this chapter, Theresa
would be happiest with no gun laws, and Bill would be happiest with no guns. The relativist cant really help us decide which position, if either, is correct; according to the relativist,
each is correct relative to his or her own perspective. Taking both perspectives into consideration when trying to determine what a societys laws should be is difficult. Perhaps,
in this case, relativism at least provides us some reasons to think we should listen to the
perspective of othersparticularly of those with whom we disagreeand to try to come
to some kind of compromise that respects the views of all those affected.
The debate over gun control is one of the many ethical issues that involve the question of
individual rights. It can be a challenge to determine the extent of those rights, as well as
their limits: Where do one persons rights start to interfere with another persons? Does
my right to possess weapons infringe on your right to keep your children safe? Does
the government have any right to impose restrictions on gun ownership? What exactly
does the Second Amendment mean, and, for that matter, what did the Founding Fathers
mean by a well-regulated militia when they wrote it? These, and many other disputes,
continue at the heart of the debate over gun control and the kinds of lawsif anythat
should be enacted relative to what kinds of guns one can own and who can own them.
There also seems to be some room for compromise, and in the political arena, there has
been a good bit of give and take. Various restrictions, such as those on fully automatic
weapons and cop-killer or armor-piercing ammunition, are relatively popular. On the
other hand, there seems to be little support for depriving citizens of the right to own rifles
for hunting, as well as weapons for sport shooting and for legitimate self-defense needs.
The study of this particular issue, then, from the perspective of ethics, indicates that the
conversation will continue, and will probably be more satisfying if everyone taking part
in it spends a little time listening to views that are different from, and even oppose, his or
her own.

Key Terms
assault weapons A term derived from
the precise military term assault rifle
(fully automatic rifles used for military
purposes); in general, any firearm with a
detachable magazine and at least two of
certain other characteristics as an assault
weapon as listed in the Assault Weapons Ban (such as a telescoping stock for
rifles, or a weight of at least 50 oz. for a
handgun). It should be noted that many
gun experts insist that the term assault
weapon is insufficiently precise, if not
meaningless.

mos85880_03_c03.indd 91

slippery slope fallacy An inference based

on the idea that one thing will necessarily
lead to another thing, usually by relatively
small gradations or steps between the two
things.

10/28/13 1:21 PM

Exercises

CHAPTER 3

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Perhaps youve seen this bumper sticker: If Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws
Will Have Guns. Consider the point being made here, and whether you think
the point is a good one. Which of these responses do you think is appropriate?
Why do you think so?
If murder is outlawed, only outlaws will murder.
If guns are outlawed, only those with guns will be willing to break the law.
More people are killed by hammers and clubs than are killed by rifles.
Cars kill more people than guns; should we outlaw cars?
2. Some respond to the idea of gun ownership as a right by saying, Your right
to own a gun does not take precedence over my right not to get shot. How
would you respond to this using an ethical argument, such as utilitarianism or
deontology?
3. It is often argued that the Second Amendment was designed to protect citizens
from a government that was too powerful. Given the weaponry available to the
current U.S. government, is that a plausible defense of the Second Amendment?
Why or why not?
4. Are there any reasonable restrictions that should be placed on private gun ownership in the United States? If so, can you name two or three such restrictions? If
not, explain why not, and indicate if that means one should be able to own any
currently available weapon.

Exercises
1. Read the following laws that have been passed, or proposed, in various parts
of the United States. Describe what a utilitarian defense of each law would look
like, and then what a utilitarian criticism of each law would look like. Could a
relativist defend any of these laws? How?
Federal law provides no age limitations with respect to the sale of a long gun
or long gun ammunition by an unlicensed person; while some states do add
age restrictions, the majority does not. In theory, then, a 10-year-old could
purchase a rifle at a gun show and its possession, in many parts of the United
States, would not violate law (Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 2012).
While there are some states that do not allow it, in the majority of states, it is
legal for an individual to openly carry a loaded firearm in public without a
permit; thus, in these states anyone could carry a loaded weapon while walking down the street and, in many cases, cannot be stopped by law enforcement
to be asked for identification (Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 2010).
In 17 states, employers cannot prevent their employees from bringing guns to
work and keeping them locked in their vehicles, even if those vehicles are on
the property of the employer. In Georgia, it is illegal to demand an employee
not bring a gun to work as a condition of employment (Newkirk, 2012).
Four states (Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, and Vermont) allow citizens over the
age of 16 to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Conceivably, then,
a 16-year-old could be carrying a loaded, concealed weapon while being
denied admission into an R-rated movie. Vermont does not require parental
permission to purchase and carry a concealed weapon (The State of Vermont,
Office of the Attorney General, n.d.).

mos85880_03_c03.indd 92

10/28/13 1:21 PM

Suggested Resources

CHAPTER 3

The city council of Nelson, Georgia, unanimously passed an ordinance

requiring the head of every household to own a gun and appropriate ammunition. (The city council noted that the ordinance would not be enforced and
carried no penalties.) (Bremback, 2013).
2. Here are some of the laws that have recently been proposed to deal with gun
violence in the United States. Some people oppose all of these measures, while
others accept all of them; naturally, many people think some of them are good
ideas and reject others. Which ones, if any, do you think would be effective?
Universal background checksa background check for all who purchase
guns, whether private sales, at gun shows, federally licensed firearms dealers, or otherwise.
A ban on high-grade, military style (assault-style) weapons.
Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
Prohibiting the possession, transfer, manufacture, and import of armorpiercing bullets.
Increased penalties for straw purchases of weapons (weapons legally purchased for another person who for one reason or another cannot possess or
purchase such a weapon).
Permit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other research
agencies to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence.
Provide training for state and local law enforcement, first responders, and
school officials on how to handle active-shooter situations.

Suggested Resources
Gun Legislation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130312
/us-gun-control-glance/?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=politics

Gun Control and Gun Rights Advocacy

The Brady Campaign is named for James Brady, who was shot at the same time President
Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981. In its own words: [The Brady Campaign fights] for sensible gun laws to protect you, your family and your community.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/
The National Rifle Association, founded in 1871, describes itself as Americas foremost
defender of Second Amendment rights.
http://home.nra.org/#/nraorg

Gun Ownership Statistics

For extensive data on gun ownership in the United States and other countries, see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22
/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

mos85880_03_c03.indd 93

10/28/13 1:21 PM

mos85880_03_c03.indd 94

10/28/13 1:21 PM