Edited by Tim Hsiao (Florida Gulf Coast University)
|Summary||Philosophical discussions of gun ownership center around the justification, nature, and scope of a right to keep and bear arms. Attention to the empirical literature is especially important, since both the benefits and harms of guns are functions of their effects on society. Some argue that since guns lead to more harms than benefits, that gun ownership ought to be banned completely or at least heavily restricted. Others argue the opposite: private gun ownership should be allowed because guns lead to more benefits than harms. There are also arguments about whether the nature of rights as moral 'trumps' override the force of empirical arguments against gun ownership.|
|Key works||A right to private gun ownership is typically justified on the basis of self-defense. While this argument is typically situated in the context of criminal aggressors (Wheeler 1997, Hughes & Hunt 2000, Huemer 2003, Hunt 2011, Baker 2014), some pro-gun philosophers have argued that gun ownership can also be justified as a type of self-defense against rogue states (Wheeler 1999). Critics of gun ownership fall within a spectrum of views. LaFollette 2000 argues that gun owners should be held strictly liable for any gun-related harms they inflict. DeGrazia 2014a and DeGrazia 2014b argue for 'moderate gun control,' under which only competent persons who demonstrate a 'special need' for gun ownership may be allowed to purchase firearms. Dixon 2011, by contrast, argues for an absolute prohibition of handgun ownership.|
|Introductions||Hunt 2013 provides a good overview of the state of philosophical discussions on gun ownership.|
Using PhilPapers from home?
Create an account to enable off-campus access through your institution's proxy server.
Monitor this page
Be alerted of all new items appearing on this page. Choose how you want to monitor it:
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers