About this topic
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' 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 (Hughes & Hunt 2000Huemer 2003, Hunt 2011Baker 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.
  Show all references
Related categories
Siblings:
22 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. Deane-Peter Baker (2014). Gun Bans, Risk, and Self-Defense. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (2).
    While there are no serious arguments in favor of there being no state control whatsoever over the private ownership and employment of firearms, there are significant arguments on the other extreme of the ‘gun control debate’ which contend for bans on the private ownership of firearms or some subset thereof. In this paper I argue that gun ban proponents like Jeff McMahan and Nicholas Dixon confuse the risk or likelihood of being confronted by an attacker intent on serious or lethal (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. C'Zar Bernstein, Timothy Hsiao & Matthew Palumbo (forthcoming). The Moral Right to Keep and Bear Firearms. Public Affairs Quarterly.
    The moral right to keep and bear arms is entailed by the moral right of self-defense. We argue that the ownership and use of firearms is a reasonable means of exercising these rights. Given their defensive value, there is a strong presumption in favor of enacting civil rights to keep and bear arms ranging from handguns to ‘assault rifles.’ Thus, states are morally obliged as a matter of justice to recognize basic liberties for firearm ownership and usage. Throughout this paper (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. James B. Brady (1983). The Justifiability of Hollow‐Point Bullets. Criminal Justice Ethics 2 (2):9-19.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Preston K. Covey (1997). Gun Control. In Ruth Chadwick (ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. Academic Press.
    Gun control assumes myriad guises among over 20,000 current laws, the en d less array of proposed legislation at all levels of government, evolving case law. administrative policies, consumer-product safety regulations, and novel liability and litigation stratagems. The topic embraces a wide variety of arguable means and social ends and, therefore, entails a fair maze of issues. Any instant case of gun control policy serves, in effect, as a rabbit hole leading to an underlying warren of issues: questions of fact, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. David DeGrazia (2014). Handguns, Moral Rights, and Physical Security. Journal of Moral Philosophy 11 (1).
    Guns occupy a major—sometimes terrible—place in contemporary American life. Do Americans have not only a legal right, but also a moral right, to own handguns? After introducing the topic, this paper examines what a moral right to private handgun ownership would amount to. It then elucidates the logical structure of the strongest argument in favor of such a right, an argument that appeals to physical security, before assessing its cogency and identifying two questionable assumptions. In light of persisting reasonable disagreement (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. David DeGrazia (2014). The Case for Moderate Gun Control. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 24 (1).
    In addressing the shape of appropriate gun policy, this essay assumes for the sake of discussion that there is a legal and moral right to private gun ownership. My thesis is that, against the background of this right, the most defensible policy approach in the United States would feature moderate gun control. The first section summarizes the American gun control status quo and characterizes what I call “moderate gun control.” The next section states and rebuts six leading arguments against this (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Nicholas Dixon (2011). Handguns, Philosophers, and the Right to Self-Defense. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (2):151-170.
    Within the last decade or so several philosophers have argued against handgun prohibition on the ground that it violates the right to self-defense. However, even these philosophers grant that the right to own handguns is not absolute and could be overridden if doing so would bring about an enormous social good. Analysis of intra-United States empirical data cited by gun rights advocates indicates that guns do not make us safer, while international data lends powerful support to the thesis that guns (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Nicholas Dixon (1999). Handguns, Violent Crime, and Self-Defense. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 13 (2):239-260.
    By far the most plausible explanation of data on violent crime in the United States is that its high handgun ownership rate is a major causal factor. The only realistic way to significantly reduce violent crime in this country is an outright ban on private ownership of handguns. While such a ban would undeniably restrict one particular freedom, it would violate no rights. In particular, the unquestioned right to self-defense does not entail a right to own handguns, because the evidence (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Timothy Hall (2006). Is There a Right to Bear Arms? Public Affairs Quarterly 20 (4):293-312.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Michael Huemer (2003). Is There a Right to Own a Gun? Social Theory and Practice 29 (2):297-324.
    Individuals have a prima facie right to own firearms. This right is significant in view both of the role that such ownership plays in the lives of firearms enthusiasts and of the self-defense value of firearms. Nor is this right overridden by the social harms of private gun ownership. These harms have been greatly exaggerated and are probably considerably smaller than the benefits of private gun ownership. And I argue that the harms would have to be at least several times (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Todd C. Hughes & Lester H. Hunt (2000). The Liberal Basis of the Right to Bear Arms. Public Affairs Quarterly 14 (1):1-25.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Lester Hunt, Gun Control. International Encyclopedia of Ethics.
    The phrase “gun control” has no very precise meaning. It typically refers either to prohibitions of or restrictions on gun ownership on the part of the civilian population. Such rules may apply either to guns in general or to some type of gun (such as handguns). More rarely, it can refer to legal restrictions, not on classes of weapons, but on classes of users, a sort of restriction that might be called “dangerous possessor gun control” (see Risk). In this case, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Lester Hunt (2011). The Right to Arms as a Means-Right. Public Affairs Quarterly 25 (2):113-130.
    1. Two IssuesIn recent years, a number of philosophers have discussed the possibility that the widely recognized right of self-defense includes another, more controversial right: a right to arms, where “arms” is understood to include guns. I will argue in what follows that the right of self-defense does indeed have this feature, and I will offer a new explanation of why it does so—an explanation that, despite its novelty is, I believe, deeply rooted in common sense.I n Section 2, I (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. John Kleinig & Hugh Lafollette (2001). Gun Control: The Issues. Criminal Justice Ethics 20 (1):17-18.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Hugh LaFollette (2001). Controlling Guns. Criminal Justice Ethics 20 (1):34-39.
    Wheeler, Stark, and Stell have raised many interesting points concerning gun control that merit extended treatment. Here, however, I will focus only on two. I will then briefly expand on the proposal I offered in the original paper.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Hugh LaFollette (2000). Gun Control. Ethics 110 (2):263-281.
    Many of us assume we must either oppose or support gun control. Not so. We have a range of alternatives. Even this way of speaking oversimplifies our choices since there are two distinct scales on which to place alternatives. One scale concerns the degree (if at all) to which guns should be abolished. This scale moves from those who want no abolition (NA) of any guns, through those who want moderate abolition (MA) - to forbid access to some subclasses of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Charles E. Schumer (1995). Commentary: Toward a Rational Gun Policy. Criminal Justice Ethics 14 (2):2-63.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Cynthia A. Stark (2001). Fundamental Rights and the Right to Bear Arms. Criminal Justice Ethics 20 (1):25-27.
  19. Lance K. Stell (2004). The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution? Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 32 (1):38-46.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Lance K. Stell (2001). Gun Control and the Regulation of Fundamental Rights. Criminal Justice Ethics 20 (1):28-33.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Samuel C. Wheeler (2001). Gun Violence and Fundamental Rights. Criminal Justice Ethics 20 (1):19-24.
  22. Samuel C. Wheeler (1999). Arms as Insurance. Public Affairs Quarterly 13 (2):111-129.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation