Gun control- Alexis Schuman

by as164 on November 5, 2014 - 12:39pm

My opinion on gun control varies completley. it is very difficult for me to stay just one sided with yes we need guns, or no there should be no guns. I agree guns are used for protection and make people feel much safer even just in their own home. But guns are also used for the wrong reason and can create much problems and harm to people. There have been many problems due to guns in US history. The Columbine, Sandy hook, and Colorado movie theater, are all well known massacares where innocent people died due to putting a gun in the wrong hands. Gun control is a sticky issue to me becuse I can't seem to decide if there are more pros or cons.

Comments

Hello, I'm one of the students from UK and I can tell you that I do feel safe living in a Country which doesn't allow its citizens to carry guns around or having them at home. In all fairness I would feel much unsafer if I were to live in a Country which allows practically anyone to own guns. I do believe that the only ones who are entitled to own and carry guns are the police and the military. I in fact do rely on the police for my safety and protection (seeing police officers in the streets, quite often, does not bother me at all). As for the 'school massacres', it is true that gun laws make them easier to be carried out, but if somebody really wants to hurt someone else they can always create home made bombs, which it could be argued are much worse.

I agree with you that it is hard to take a position on this issue because there exist several advantages and disadvantages. However, the question here that we must ask is: when if, ever, gun control should be legalized? As you said, people agree because it provides protection and people disagree because guns are used for the wrong reason. Now let me help you to clarify your opinion on this issue with the theory I learned in class called Act Utilitarianism. This theory argues that our overall aim in evaluating actions should be to make the world as happy as possible. An act utilitarianism would say that one must do the act that brings the most happiness and least pain, in each case, considering all who are affected by the action. In other words, this theory argues that actions are considered right or wrong solely by the consequences. For example, if killing someone would save a thousand of life, then the use of the gun to kill that person is right. It is clear that allowing gun control would create pain since the person is in possession of a gun and can kill another. But if the gun control is not allowed, there would be no more killing. This theory has a lot of critique and other theory doesn’t agree with it. If you want to learn more about this theory I suggest you this site: http://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/

I don’t think is hard to take a position on this issue. I personally believe that there are more negative aspects related with guns than positive ones. I think that the real question to be analysed is this: who should have a gun? I just read an article that can maybe help you to take a position on this issue. This article shows a nine-year old girl who killed her teacher with a gun. This happened in Arizona, one of the 21 states where there is not laws restricting the access of guns to minors under 18 years old. Imagine!!!
Article: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/too-young-shoot-why-its-legal-kids-h...

I understand your opinion on Utilitarianism. Making your decision based on what would do the most good, for the most amount of people. But how do you know having a gun couldn't help you with that theory? Lets say someone is going on a rampage on a bunch of people and being very violent with out a gun, and this person already hurt 10 people, and is about to hurt more. So someone random comes outside with there gun and can stop the situation very quickly. That would be benefiting the majority of the people in this case. Like you said "if killing someone would save a thousand of like, then the use of the gun to kill that person is right"

I understand your opinion on Utilitarianism. Making your decision based on what would do the most good, for the most amount of people. But how do you know having a gun couldn't help you with that theory? Lets say someone is going on a rampage on a bunch of people and being very violent with out a gun, and this person already hurt 10 people, and is about to hurt more. So someone random comes outside with there gun and can stop the situation very quickly. That would be benefiting the majority of the people in this case. Like you said "if killing someone would save a thousand of like, then the use of the gun to kill that person is right"