What do you think?
Rate this book
DEBATING GUN CONTROL
Americans have a deeply ambivalent relationship to guns. The United States leads all nations in rates of private gun ownership, yet stories of gun tragedies frequent the news, spurring calls for tighter gun regulations. The debate tends to be acrimonious and is frequently misinformed and illogical. The central question is the extent to which federal or state governments should regulate gun ownership and use in the interest of public safety. In this volume, David DeGrazia and Lester Hunt examine this policy question primarily from the standpoint of What would morally defensible gun policy in the United States look like?
Hunt's contribution argues that the U.S. Constitution is right to frame the right to possess a firearm as a fundamental human right. The right to arms is in this way like the right to free speech. More precisely, it is like the right to own and possess a cell phone or an internet connection. A government that banned such weapons would be violating the right of citizens to protect themselves. This is a function that governments do not warding off attacks is not the same thing as punishing perpetrators after an attack has happened. Self-protection is a function that citizens must carry out themselves, either by taking passive steps (such as better locks on one's doors) or active ones (such as acquiring a gun and learning to use it safely and effectively).
DeGrazia's contribution features a discussion of the Supreme Court cases asserting a constitutional right to bear arms, an analysis of moral rights, and a critique of the strongest arguments for a moral right to private gun ownership. He follows with both a consequentialist case and a rights-based case for moderately extensive gun control, before discussing gun politics and advancing policy suggestions.
In debating this important topic, the authors elevate the quality of discussion from the levels that usually prevail in the public arena. DeGrazia and Hunt work in the discipline of academic philosophy, which prizes intellectual honesty, respect for opposing views, command of relevant facts, and rigorous reasoning. They bring the advantages of philosophical analysis to this highly-charged issue in the service of illuminating the strongest possible cases for and against (relatively extensive) gun regulations and whatever common ground may exist between these positions.
Hunt's contribution argues that the U.S. Constitution is right to frame the right to possess a firearm as a fundamental human right. The right to arms is in this way like the right to free speech. More precisely, it is like the right to own and possess a cell phone or an internet connection. A government that banned such weapons would be violating the right of citizens to protect themselves. This is a function that governments do not warding off attacks is not the same thing as punishing perpetrators after an attack has happened. Self-protection is a function that citizens must carry out themselves, either by taking passive steps (such as better locks on one's doors) or active ones (such as acquiring a gun and learning to use it safely and effectively).
DeGrazia's contribution features a discussion of the Supreme Court cases asserting a constitutional right to bear arms, an analysis of moral rights, and a critique of the strongest arguments for a moral right to private gun ownership. He follows with both a consequentialist case and a rights-based case for moderately extensive gun control, before discussing gun politics and advancing policy suggestions.
In debating this important topic, the authors elevate the quality of discussion from the levels that usually prevail in the public arena. DeGrazia and Hunt work in the discipline of academic philosophy, which prizes intellectual honesty, respect for opposing views, command of relevant facts, and rigorous reasoning. They bring the advantages of philosophical analysis to this highly-charged issue in the service of illuminating the strongest possible cases for and against (relatively extensive) gun regulations and whatever common ground may exist between these positions.
288 pages, Paperback
Published October 14, 2016
19 people want to read
About the author
David DeGrazia
25 books18 followersDavid DeGrazia is an American moral philosopher specializing in bioethics and animal ethics. He is Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University, where he has taught since 1989.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 23, 2024
This book, part of Oxford’s Debating Ethics series, presents opposing moral views of gun control by two philosophers. In the 8 chapters of Part I, Hunt (Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison) offers “The Case Against.” The core of his argument is that gun ownership is a right that deserves special protection because it facilitates the fundamental right to self-defense. In the 8 chapters of Part II, Degrazia (George Washington Univ.) argues “The Case in Favor.” His case for gun control rests on the negative social consequences of gun ownership in terms of public safety. The subtitle’s framing of the question of gun control as “how much regulation” is needed is most descriptive of the debate presented. Hunt’s anti-restrictionism advocates minimal but not no regulation. Similarly, DeGrazia characterizes his view of the level of morally justifiable regulation as “moderately extensive.” Because the two authors do not go back and forth from chapter to chapter, what is presented is not how many would imagine a debate, though there are implicit references to each other’s arguments in each of the two parts. Overall, two distinct and opposing ethical positions toward gun regulation are presented fairly clearly and persuasively. The philosophical form and language used to present the two arguments, however, will most reward the informed or guided reader and will be off-putting to the uninitiated and some students.
Displaying 1 of 1 review