Is there a Right to own a gun; Ethics of Gun Ownership

After the release of the 2003 study, ‘First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws’ By the Task Force on Community Preventive Service that found no evidence that gun control laws were effective in reducing gun violence...
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Michael Huemer published the following arguement in Social Theory and Practice, Vol. 29, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 297-324.
http://www.owl232.net/guncontrol.htm
This article provides a good discussion on the ethics of gun ownership.

After reading the article, I would suggest doing the following self test as it outlines neatly the article and IMO, encapsulates many of the arguements from pro gun rights advocates that have been expressed trough out the thread, adding a couple more.
http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780190631314/resources/par4/quiz/michael/

The issue of gun control is far larger than guns IMO, it is about civil rights, the principles of the constitution, and ultimately individual liberty. Allow the right to be subverted and all rights become vulnerable to political expediency of sitting power.

 

I agree, Gun Control in major Cities in California, Los Angeles, New Jersey,
New York, all treat regular Citizens as potential Criminals, and carry of firearms is called a Priveledge, not a Right.
Yet, in these Cities, Crime is high and Criminals are Armed, and Gun Control only affects Law Abiding Citizens.

 

1: Yes, there is a right to own a gun.
2: There is nothing unethical about exercising the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Yes there is a right to own guns
Yes that right like every other right can be subject to regulation

 

you pretend that the restrictions are more important than the right. A government has no power to restrict a right unless it has proper jurisdiction. any people believe the federal government's claim of having jurisdiction is bogus, or at best, limited. The application of the second amendment to the states has rolled back the jurisdiction of the several states. I find it interesting that you always try to define the right by its limits. the is very telling

 

How is gun ownership morally justified? Self defense? But I think most people would agree that it's okay for the government to regulate how we defend ourselves. That's part of living in a civilized society.

Professor Jeff McMahan has some thoughts on the matter:

"If the logic behind the [gun] advocates’ empirical claim were correct, prisoners would be safer if they were allowed to have guns and thus did not have to rely on guards for protection....This parallels the advocate’s claim that citizens are safer if they are armed and do not have to rely solely on the police for their protection....

"It does not take much imagination to see that prisoners locked up together with guns but without guards would not be more secure than prisoners without guns but with guards....

"But does the state really violate the rights of prisoners by denying them access to guns for self-defense? Not if each prisoner has a higher expected level of security against assault and homicide when they are all protected by guards than each would have if all were allowed to have guns for self-defense..... Thus a prohibition of gun possession does not violate prisoners’ rights if it enhances their security by reducing the occasions on which a prisoner might need a gun to defend his life. And the same is true outside of prisons – where, at least in the US, people are more likely to be murdered than they would be if they were in prison."
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/04/a-challenge-to-gun-rights/

Why is the murder rate in prisons lower? There are more people with criminal tendencies in prison but those people don't have access to firearms. The only people that have guns are the guards. So it seems that limiting access to guns can make a very significant and positive difference.

 

You are so funny !

Do you really believe that stuff you spout ?
I love your Prison analogy,
crime is lower in Prison !

That was so ignorant, there was big scandal with N.Y.C. Department of Corrections, Officers were sneaking guns in for the Prisoners, to equalize the power struggles, As they kill each other in Prison every day.......

If I was a complete moron I might be fooled, truth is Countries with strict gun control still have high crime, all it means is most People do not have Guns, yet enough Criminals can get guns in many ways, Sailors smuggle them in.

As a Constable in the Country of San Dorinde, a Country with incredibly strict Gun control and licensing, and I was able to observe first hand, the effects that making firearms a Priveledge has.

Gun control does not make anyone safer.....
Far from it.

I saw many schemes smugglers used to smuggle in all kinds of guns.
And they would bribe Officials, just as they do everywhere.

 

It’s obvious you didn’t read the links.

 

It was obvious he didn’t read the links I posted... never does.

 

It is obvious my post is true

 

You have an opinion but wickard resolved this issue over a generation ago and neither party has any will to change that. Better get used to it.

 

I think that argument got flushed in Lopez

I like how you didn't actually respond to what I actually said

 

Lopez completely overturned Wickard? Really? Maybe get a lawyer to explain to you what really happened. LOL

 

another complete misrepresentation of my point. I guess when you cannot really discuss the issue raised, you have to build straw men

 

Yes stop building strawmen. LOL

 

another silly bit of nonsense. tell us how constantly inane one liners with the invariable LOL furthers the "honest debate" you keep squawking for?

you have never been able to intelligently argue in favor of Wickard-a case that has been panned by legal scholars for 7 decades

 

I have argued extensively about Wickard and won that argument. 7 decades. 70 years. Never once had a serious case that challenged it. You lost this debate before you were born. LOL

 

another self proclaimed win-squawking that the case was determined one way is not an argument

you were asked to defend Wickard you proved incapable of doing so

 

I have defended the case and no one would even THINK to try to overturn it. You lost. LOL

 

that demonstrates a pathetic lack of understanding of current jurisprudence.

 

Thank you for your opinion

 

dozens of organizations have called for Wickard to be overturned. I suspect Thomas and Alito would if they could

here is one of many such calls

https://spectator.org/35906_wickard-v-filburn-time-it-go/

In The Tempting of America, Robert Bork observed that, even if a decision like Wickard v. Filburn is too “thoroughly embedded in our national life” to overrule, that doesn’t mean that “the Court must necessarily repeat its mistake as congressional regulation attempts to reach new subject areas.”

 

How exactly is it not?

It is not an example of what would amount to a civilized society, when government has the authority to determine that the lives of the citizen, and by extension the law abiding, are of less value, and less importance, than the lives of those who would seek to do them harm for their own benefit.

Prisoners are already murdering each other and settling matters themselves.

Lower than what specifically? Exactly what is being compared for the purpose of determining where prisons rank in terms of murder?

Prisoners do not need firearms to commit murder. They rely on stabbing implements, referred to as shivs and shanks, that they manufacture on their own out of whatever pieces of metal, plastic, glass, and wood that they can lay their hands on. One stab to the kidney and the victim is dead within minutes from rapid blood loss causing the vital organs to shut down. Prisoners have absolutely no qualms, and no objections, with getting up close and personal with those that they will murder for whatever reason, and do not shy away from such simply because they must get their hands dirty, and do some actual work.

 

If only you could find a politician or have a case that you could bring before the court....oh if only....LOL

 

The point of the posted links were about the morality and veracity of gun control, not a discussion about whether or not law makers infringing on the rights. More simple minded aim and shoot before thinking by one of the self acknowleged trolls.