Russ shafer

Russ Shafer-Landau offers the article by Jeff McMahan to provide an analytical
argument regarding the issue of gun control. McMahan, in his article, ‘Why Gun Control Isn’t
Enough,’ assesses why he mainly believes that guns merely be controlled within the US,
instead, the guns should be total banned. McMahan develops a case on gun ownership, in its
entirety, is illogical and dangerous. Further, through numerous examples and his own
reasoning, McMahan hopes to convince his readers that the only way forward on the issue
surrounding guns in the US is to entirely ban civilians from owning traditional firearms. The
article by McMahan explores the possible consequences of what can happen to the society
where guns are legal and readily accessible (McMahan, 2012). A society where a fist fight can
transform into shoot out, the lunatics and criminally disposed individuals can easily kill
others based on their temporary urge, the law enforcement can be ineffective, and the
domestic security and defense transform into a highly ‘privatized’ and an issue of self-help,
hence leaving the people without guns even more vulnerable. McMahan’s argument on gun
ownership primarily succeeds due to his eloquent analysis of the consequences leading to
mass gun ownership and the evaluation of the central arguments of the gun advocates. Thus,
the paper will explore the arguments presented by McMahan on the issues of gun control and
the counter argument on the issue.
Right from the introduction of the article, McMahan makes no subtlety in the topic of
discussion. The introduction to the article starts by stating the argument that is the ‘central
pillar’ of the case for supporting the private gun ownership. This general perspective centers
on the notion that the individuals would be safer when more people own guns because of the
armed citizens deter crime and can effectively defend themselves and other individuals
against it when deterrence fails. Also, following thee presentation if the ‘central pillar
argument’ the gun advocates support, McMahan systematically discusses and analyses the
potential realistic impacts and consequences of such stance and concludes that the US should
ban all private gun ownership entirely or partially.
The first point presented by McMahan argues that almost entirely private gun
ownership ban contains the increase in vulnerability and aggression a society can face if the
guns were readily accessible to individuals. Considering the altercations that individuals have
on their daily basis, the citizens can begin to comprehend the dangers of a society readily
supplied with firearms. McMahan offers the evidence from the several viral videos of the
quick-tempered people with road rage breaking out into fistfights in busy intersections, the
world star videos of the students fighting on the school campuses, and the of ‘pranksters’
getting attacked for ‘pulling different pranks within social venues like the parks and malls.
Further, the current society tends to be quick-tempered, aggressive, as well as acting on a
temporary urge and whim (McMahan, 2012). The instance offered are merely a small scale of
the examples, in which, aggression and violence should not have been the answer.
Nonetheless, when assessing the large frame of the impacts of the loose gun control policies,
the people can begin to comprehend the carnage and bloodshed that is associated to the guns
provided to the wrong individuals like criminals and lunatics.
Additionally, the number of mass shootings, especially school shootings, has been
increasing in numbers for the past years, with the most recent one being in the Marjory
Stoneman Douglas high school in Florida, which has left people have daily discussions and
debates on the issue of gun control policies since other students were left with emotional,
mental and physical trauma over such incidents. Further, the tragedies keep happening yet the
people often argue if the country should ban the plentiful guns for everyone, including the
lunatics and criminally disposed individuals who might have sudden and temporary urge to
kill others. In the view of McMahan, the solution is very simple, which entails banning gun
ownership from all people. Also, by having such a high ownership of guns, the US becomes
the ‘Wild West’, in which what could have been a fistfight turns into a shootdown and the
people without guns are left more vulnerable.
Besides, the central pillar argument of gun advocates claims that armed citizens
should possibly deter crime within the society and offer a better opportunity for the people to
defend themselves and others against it mainly when deterrence fails. However, what would
happen to the role of police and the individuals’ sense of security if all the people within the
society own firearms. McMahan counterargue such perspective as he notes that, ‘One would
think that if widespread gun ownership had the robust deterrent effects that gun advocates
claim it has, our country would be freer of crime than other developed societies’ (McMahan,
2012). However, this is not the true reflection of the society, since when people are readily
armed with firearms, it would not essentially deter crime because criminals would work
harder in order to be better armed, and become more effective in their utilization of guns, and
readily use them when they needed. Therefore, the individuals who opt not to own guns
would be left increasingly more vulnerable and the law enforcement would be left less
powerful than the citizens. Moreover, the power of the police decays, and the security
becomes a matter of vigilantism and self-help, hence the unarmed are left vulnerable and
persuaded to acquire guns to try protecting themselves, and lastly the democratically
controlled, the public law enforcement would become less significant and dismantled.
The most thought provoking and innovative way to perceive the logic of private gun
ownership is via McMahan’s comparison of it to the nuclear arms race. In which, the
possession one state has of the nuclear weapons that increases their security, though in doing
so, decreases that of the others, which leads to an incentive for other nations to attain nuclear
weapons as well. However, ultimately, if all the nations acquire them, it would possess the
potential for catastrophe via misperception, irrationality, or even accidents, the similar
incidents that often happen with the readily accessible and public ownership of guns. Further,
individuals are always quick to support a ban and prohibition on the nuclear arms instead of
the guns even though they both possess and have equal purpose to the application to cause
harm. Whereas most of the gun advocates would argue for the continued gun policies due to
the recreational activities, like hunting and target practice, among others, there are certain
intrinsic regarding the guns in which their extreme existence was made for harming and
hurting. According to McMahan, there is nothing positive about public gun ownership 9
McMahan, 2012). Further, independently, guns are not good, the argument presented by
McMahan creates is that firearms are dependent on the actions of others. For examples, when
the guns are used as personal security, it is always made in a stance of the action of other
individuals threating others within the society. Therefore, a positive ownership of firearms
could not possibly exist without being backed up by the cations of others especially the
criminals. Although the guns are perceived as techniques of averting harms and attacks,
though in most cases, they are used to harm others.
The first objection to McMahan is on his notion that the application of guns is only
attributed to the adverse impact in the society. According to Jones and Stone (2015), in most
cases, the guns have been useful and effective in protecting the general public. Most of the
gun advocates asserts that it is the second amendment, hence it is legal and its is within the
American rights, with most individuals believing that it would make the country safer. On the
other hand, Newman and Hartman (2019) posit that gun ownership to the public would help in
protecting families and properties from intruders. Individuals cannot effectively defend their
love ones from armed intruder without any firearms. Hence guns are crucial in self0defence
and are required whenever the law enforcement officers fail to provide the protection services
to the public. Moreover, banning and implementing tougher regulations will not deter
criminals from acquiring these firearms. Therefore, guns should not be banned since
criminals will be the only people with guns, thus putting the general public in a greater
danger. Another objection to McMahan’s perception of guns is that all guns are obtained
legally. Most of the guns owned by the criminals are not licensed, which implies that even
when the guns are banned, the criminals would still possess them, which would make people
be more in danger.
In summary, McMahan denotes that the only plausible reason that the rate of murder
is so high is because of there is a surplus of guns within the US. Further, he calls the gun
advocates out and mainly question their motives, thus inquires if they truly plan on allowing
the firearms to be distributed to the whole nation. Hence, he forces the gun advocates to give
themselves a conscience assessment. However, McMahan fails to assess the significance of
the gun private ownership, which would be essential in ensuring general public’s safety.
Another compelling argument by the gun advocates is that despite being banned or enforcing
strict rules, criminals will always possess these firearms, hence the ban would make the
public to be more vulnerable in case of an attack.
References
Jones, M. A., & Stone, G. W. (2015). The US gun-control paradox: Gun buyer response to
congressional gun-control initiatives. Journal of Business & Economics Research
(JBER), 13(4), 167-174.
McMahan, J. (2012). Why gun ‘control’is not enough. The New York Times.
Newman, B. J., & Hartman, T. K. (2019). Mass shootings and public support for gun control. British
Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 1527-1553.
…