This chapter contains sections titled: Why Gun Control Matters The Initial Entitlement Problem The Regulatory Power Dangerous‐possessor Gun Control Strict Gun Control Guns as Environmental Toxins Gun Prevalence as a Social Cause of the US Homicide Rate How Many Guns? America's Homicide Rate Guns and Social Causation of the Homicide Rate Mechanism in Causal Accounts Mental Causation The Paradox of Gun Control and Reasonable Policies Conclusion Acknowledgments.

“Strict gun control” has no clear meaning,so it is necessary to clarify it.I define SGC as an array of legally sanctioned restrictions designed to impose firearm scarcity on the general population. SGC’s public policy goal, gun scarcity, commonly rests on the predicates that “dangerous criminal control” is not the central problem for reducing the problem of criminal gun violence but rather that it is the social prevalence of the distinctively-lethal instruments by which both supposedly “good citizens” (...) as well as violent criminals inflict a staggeringly high percentage of injury and death.Professor Zimring is one SGC’s most distinguished, prolific and comprehensive theorists. He has advocated for handgun scarcity among the general population since at least 1969. (shrink)

“Strict gun control” has no clear meaning,so it is necessary to clarify it.I define SGC as an array of legally sanctioned restrictions designed to impose firearm scarcity on the general population. SGC’s public policy goal, gun scarcity, commonly rests on the predicates that “dangerous criminal control” is not the central problem for reducing the problem of criminal gun violence but rather that it is the social prevalence of the distinctively-lethal instruments by which both supposedly “good citizens” (...) as well as violent criminals inflict a staggeringly high percentage of injury and death.Professor Zimring is one SGC’s most distinguished, prolific and comprehensive theorists. He has advocated for handgun scarcity among the general population since at least 1969. (shrink)

In the wake of the Stoneman Douglas School shooting, Republican and Democratic leaders—like the American electorate they represent—remain sharply divided in their responses to gun violence. They are united in their condemnation of these mass shootings, but they disagree about whether stricter or looser gun control laws are the answer. Those on the right side of the political aisle suggest that the issue is one of mental illness rather than gun control. Conversely, those who are more liberal or (...) progressive in their political learnings are quick to condemn attempts to reframe the issue of mass shootings as a mental health problem. Both sides are wrong. Mass shootings are indeed partially a mental health problem, albeit one poorly addressed by our current laws and policies. But the solution to mass shootings also needs to consider strategies that may reduce gun violence in general. (shrink)

This paper organizes the question of gun controls as violence policy under two quite different headings. The first issue to be discussed is the relationship between gun use and the death rate from violent crime. The second question is whether and how firearms control strategies might reduce the death rate from violence. When we review the evidence on the relationship between guns and violence, it seems clear that gun use, usually handgun use, increases the death rate from violence by (...) a factor of three to five. Nobody in mainstream social science or criminology argues against such weapon effects these days, although some are more skeptical of the magnitude estimated than others. Thus the problem is both genuine and important. (shrink)

This paper organizes the question of gun controls as violence policy under two quite different headings. The first issue to be discussed is the relationship between gun use and the death rate from violent crime. The second question is whether and how firearms control strategies might reduce the death rate from violence. When we review the evidence on the relationship between guns and violence, it seems clear that gun use, usually handgun use, increases the death rate from violence by (...) a factor of three to five. Nobody in mainstream social science or criminology argues against such weapon effects these days, although some are more skeptical of the magnitude estimated than others. Thus the problem is both genuine and important. (shrink)

The gun control debate is more complex than most disputants acknowledge. We are not tasked with answering a single question: should we have gun control? There are three distinct policy questions confronting us: who should we permit to have which guns, and how should we regulate the acquisition, storage, and carrying of guns people may legitimately own? To answer these questions we must decide whether (and which) people have a right to bear arms, what kind of right they (...) have, and how stringent it is. We must also evaluate divergent empirical claims about (a) the role of guns in causing harm, and (b) the degree to which private ownership of guns can protect innocent civilians from attacks by criminals, either in their homes or in public. This book sorts through the conceptual, moral, and empirical claims to fairly assess arguments for and against serious gun control. I argue that the US needs far more gun control than we currently have in most jurisdictions. (shrink)

This article examines the problem of the specificity and functions of mental control from two main perspectives: (1) from the standpoint of natural scientific explanation; (2) within a socio-psychological and socio-humanitarian context. The first approach employs an information-based framework to address the question of how phenomena of subjective reality can serve as causes of physical changes. The distinction between informational and physical causality is elucidated, providing a justification for psychic (mental) causality as a form of informational causality. Within (...) this context, the article discusses issues of information encoding and decoding, recent advances in neuroscience regarding the deciphering of brain codes for mental phenomena, and pertinent results from genomics. The author explores the significance of these developments for substantiating free will and self-determination processes, as well as for developing new artificial intelligence systems capable of emulating natural intelligence functions. Building upon these foundations, the second aspect of the discussion examines the role of mental control in interpersonal and mass communications, as well as in the functioning of institutional entities. To this end, the article investigates the relationships between individual consciousness and mass, institutional consciousness, the importance of national leadership in extreme situations, the phenomenon of polysubjectivity, and related questions concerning the optimal balance between centralization and autonomization of control mechanisms. The author demonstrates the inevitability of overcoming the principle of monopolarity, which inhibits autonomization functions and thereby undermines the foundations of global social self-organization. Finally, the article briefly addresses a number of salient issues pertaining to the meaning, objectives, and outcomes of mental control acts, as well as their socio-humanitarian implications and evaluation. (shrink)

A crucial question for libertarians about free will and moral responsibility concerns how their accounts secure more control than compatibilism. This problem is particularly exasperating for event-causal libertarianism, as it seems that the only difference between these accounts and compatibilism is that the former require indeterminism. But how can indeterminism, a mere negative condition, enhance control? This worry has led many to conclude that the only viable form of libertarianism is agent-causal libertarianism. In this paper I show (...) that this conclusion is premature. I explain how event-causal libertarianism secures more control than compatibilism by offering a novel argument for incompatibilism. Part of the reason my solution has gone unnoticed is that it is often mistakenly assumed that an agent's control is wholly exhausted by the agent's powers and abilities. I argue, however, that control is constituted not just by what we have the ability to do, but also by what we have the opportunity to do. And it is by furnishing agents with new opportunities that event-causal libertarianism secures enhanced control. In order to defend this claim, I provide an analysis of opportunities and construct a novel incompatibilist argument to show that the opportunity to do otherwise is incompatible with determinism. (shrink)

본고의 목적은 전기 키레네학파가 아리스티포스를 충실히 따르고자 했음에도, 절제 및 인식의 문제와 관련해서는 자신들의 학설에 아리스티포스의 신념을 성공적으로 반영했다고 평가하기 어렵다는 점을 보이는 일이다. 이를 위해 본고는 아리스티포스의 일화들 속에서 절제력을 중요시하고 욕망의 무한확대를 경계하기도 하는 그의 모습을 확인한다. 이어서 전기 학파의 쾌락 개념과 반행복주의를 서술하고, 도덕의 본래적 가치를 부정하는 그들의 입장을 설명하면서, 전기 학파와 아리스티포스의 공통점을 찾는다. 다음으로 전기 학파가 절제력에 대해 침묵했다는 문제점과 인식론적 회의주의를 무리하게 도입했다는 문제점을 제시하고, 바로 이 때문에 그들이 아리스티포스로부터 멀어지게 되었다고 해석한다. 마지막으로 본고는 (...) 이 두 문제점이 에피쿠로스와 밀의 쾌락주의적 윤리학에서 어떻게 처리되었는지 살펴봄으로써, 동적 쾌락을 추구하는 쾌락주의가 염세적 색깔을 띠지 않으려면 인간의 고급 능력 사용을 권장하고 인식론적 회의주의를 포기하거나 완화시킬 필요가 있다고 제안한다. (shrink)

Americans have an ambivalent relationship to guns. The debate over the role of guns and gun regulations in American society tends to be acrimonious and misinformed.

This chapter examines the charge that the indeterminism required by standard event-causal libertarian accounts would diminish the control that is exercised in acting. The objection has been advanced with an ensurance argument and an argument from luck. Both arguments are rejected; nondeterministic causation of an action by its immediate causal antecedents need not diminish at all the type of control relevant to free action. This chapter further assesses the account of free will advanced by Robert Kane, which imposes (...) certain special requirements meant to address the problem of diminished control. These special requirements provide no help; but, in any case, none is needed. (shrink)

This anthology is intended to be used in Political Philosophy courses. It focuses on contemporary political problems, and it is intended to be paired with any of the numerous readers which are dedicated to the history of political philosophy. History, theory, and political problems are the three pillars of the political philosophy course. However, while the anthologies on the history of political philosophy are numerous, there are relatively few sources that focus on contemporary political problems. This book fills that gap, (...) with the leading contemporary positions on school vouchers, government support for the arts, pornography, same sex marriage, drug legalization, gun control, terrorism, torture, capital punishment, affirmative action, Immigration, and the environment. (shrink)

The most inclusive anthology of its kind, Exploring Moral Problems covers both classic issues and often-neglected topics including the meaning of life, prostitution, organ sales, pornography, drug legalization, gun control, immigration, reparations, racism, sexism, sex and consent, sexual harassment, and climate change. The readings have been carefully edited to make them understandable to every reader. Each selection is accompanied by an introduction and study questions that help students comprehend the material. Reflecting the major role of women in philosophy today, (...) more than 1/3 of the contemporary essays are authored by women. (shrink)

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, the state denies the right of gun ownership to some class of the population deemed – perhaps due to youth, mental infirmity, or prior criminal behavior – to be insufficiently trustworthy. Dangerous possessor rules seem to be per se uncontroversial: though there is disagreement about which users are sufficiently untrustworthy, no one seems to deny that there should be some restrictions on who may own these weapons. The philosophical literature that has developed in the past two decades is focused mainly on legal restrictions on guns, and not on users. (shrink)

The issue of gun control is among a growing number of polarizing topics that may seem immune from meaningful compromise and rational debate. Although their intransience may be exaggerated, few citi...

Arguments for handgun ownership typically appeal to handguns’ value as an effective means of self-protection. Against this, critics argue that private ownership of handguns leads to more social harm than it prevents. Both sides make powerful arguments, and in the absence of a reasonable consensus regarding the merits of gun ownership, David DeGrazia proposes two gun control policies that ‘reasonable disputants on both sides of the issue have principled reasons to accept.’ These policies hinge on his claim that ‘an (...) even-handed examination of the available evidence casts considerable doubt on the thesis that handgun ownership enables more adequate self-defense and physical security in the home.’ We challenge DeGrazia’s ‘moderate gun control’ policies on both philosophical and empirical grounds. Philosophically, we show that the arguments he gives in support of his proposed gun-control measures are too narrow and incomplete to warrant his conclusions about what kind of gun control there ought to be, even if he is right about the empirical evidence. Empirically, we argue that a truly even-handed examination of the evidence makes DeGrazia’s claim that gun ownership is on average self-defeating much less plausible than he supposes. Our conclusion is that DeGrazia has failed to establish his claim that gun ownership is self-defeating and therefore has no case for the gun-control policies he suggests. (shrink)

We propose a fundamental challenge to the feasibility of moral progress: most extant theories of progress, we will argue, assume an unrealistic level of cognitive control people must have over their moral judgments for moral progress to occur. Moral progress depends at least in part on the possibility of individual people improving their moral cognition to eliminate the pernicious influence of various epistemically defective biases and other distorting factors. Since the degree of control people can exert over their (...) moral cognition tends to be significantly overestimated, the prospects of moral progress face a formidable problem, the force of which has thus far been underappreciated. In the paper, we will provide both conceptual and empirical arguments for this thesis, and explain its most important implications. (shrink)

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 guns - to those who want absolute abolition (AA). The second scale concerns the restrictions (if any) on those guns that are available to private citizens. This scale moves from those who want absolute restrictions (AR) through those who want moderate restrictions (MR) to those who want no restrictions (NR) at all. Restrictions vary not only in strength but also in content. We could restrict who owns guns, how they obtain them, where and how they store them, and where and how they can carry them. (shrink)

According to event-causal libertarianism, an action is free in the sense relevant to moral responsibility when it is caused indeterministically by an agent’s beliefs, desires, intentions, or by their occurrences. This paper attempts to clarify one of the major objections to this theory: the objection that the theory cannot explain the relevance of indeterminism to this kind of freedom (known as free will). Christopher Evan Franklin (2011, 2018) has argued that the problem of explaining the relevance of indeterminism to (...) free will (which he calls “the problem of enhanced control”) arises because it is difficult to see how indeterminism could enhance our abilities, and disappears when we realize that beside the relevant abilities free will requires opportunities. In this paper, I argue that the problem occurs not because of the focus on abilities, but because of the difficulty to explain how indeterminism could contribute to the satisfaction of the sourcehood condition of free will in the framework of event-causal theory of action. (shrink)

This article explores gun control and the ethics of hunting and suggests that hunting ought not to be permitted, and not because of its impact on those animals that are hunted, but because of the risk other humans are subjected to as a result of some being permitted to own guns for mere preference satisfaction. This article examines the nature of freedom, its value, and how responsibility for the exercising of that freedom ought to be regarded when it involves (...) subjecting others to a risk of grave bodily harm. A distinction between two kinds of freedom is put forth and it is argued that it would be wrong to sacrifice freedoms of intrinsic worth for freedoms of instrumental worth. (shrink)

This essay argues that gun control in America is a philosophical as well as a policy debate. This explains the depth of acrimony it causes. It also explains why the technocratic public health argument favored by the gun control movement has been so unsuccessful in persuading opponents and motivating supporters. My analysis also yields some positive advice for advocates of gun control: take the political philosophy of the gun rights movement seriously and take up the challenge of (...) showing that a society without guns is a better society, not merely a safer one. (shrink)

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 general approach to gun policy. The section that follows presents a positive case for moderate gun control that emphasizes safety in the home and society as well as rights whose enforcement entails some limits or qualifications on the right to bear arms. A final section shows how the recommended gun regulations address legitimate purposes, rather than imposing arbitrary restrictions on gun rights, and offers concluding reflections. (shrink)

The criminalization of femicide in Mexico has been introduced as a tool to address the violence, discrimination, and oppression against women. The criminalization strategy has a symbolic function: going beyond deterring the crime to be used as tool for education. In that sense, the criminalization of femicide emerges as an educational tool used to introduce new principles and societal values, highlighting the reality of discrimination and subordination against women, thereby transforming an individual conduct into a watershed issue worthy of collective (...) condemnation. At the same time, official data reveals that over the past two decades, the rate of murders of women involving firearms has increased by 375%. This highlights the necessity for a comprehensive criminalization strategy that acknowledges the widespread criminal use of firearms as a significant factor in gender-related killings of women. Therefore, to raise awareness (as the femicide laws intend), every policy emanating from the State, or its affiliate institutions must incorporate a gender perspective. This includes specific programs targeting armed gender-based violence, considering the entire weapons cycle, including gun production, their use, and transfer processes. Moreover, this gender-sensitive approach must also acknowledge that the possession of small arms is linked to violent masculinities and that women, beyond being victims, might also play roles as perpetrators of armed violence. The symbolic purpose of femicide laws should then become a platform for developing further appropriate effective policies and strategies to reduce gender-based violence, with special consideration of gendered armed violence. This article will analyze the possibility for extending the symbolic purpose of femicide law to produce a gendered small arms control strategy in Mexico. Considering the educational alternative that the femicide law provides, the following paper will evaluate the criteria needed to develop a comprehensive and intersectional program for gun control in Mexico. (shrink)

Hugh LaFollette, Jeff McMahan, and David DeGrazia endorse the most popular and convincing argument for the strict regulation of firearms in the U.S. The argument is based on the extensive, preventable harm caused by firearms. DeGrazia offers another compelling argument based on the rights of those threatened by firearms. My thesis is a conditional: if these usual arguments for gun control succeed, then alcoholic beverages should be controlled much more strictly than they are, possibly to the point of prohibition. (...) The argument for this thesis involves developing a careful analogy between firearms and alcohol and defending the analogy against objections. (shrink)

Hugh LaFollette, Jeff McMahan, and David DeGrazia endorse the most popular and convincing argument for the strict regulation of firearms in the U.S. The argument is based on the extensive, preventable harm caused by firearms. DeGrazia offers another compelling argument based on the rights of those threatened by firearms. My thesis is a conditional: if these usual arguments for gun control succeed, then alcoholic beverages should be controlled much more strictly than they are, possibly to the point of prohibition. (...) The argument for this thesis involves developing a careful analogy between firearms and alcohol and defending the analogy against objections. (shrink)

The best arguments against gun control invoke moral rights—it might be good if there were fewer guns in circulation, but there is a moral right to own firearms. Rather than emphasizing the potential benefits of gun control, this paper meets the best arguments on their home turf. I argue that there simply is no moral right to keep guns on one’s person or in one’s residence. In fact, our moral rights support the mutual disarmament of citizens and police.

The present paper presents a philosofical analysis of the concept of control based on a specific characterization of the structure of control systems. The paper is subdivided into four section: in the first and the second sections the control dynamics is described and interpreted, while the last two sections briefly copy with the relationships between control, teleonomy, teleology and freedom.

This article investigates the ability of mental incapacity tests to account for problems of control, through a study of the approach to alcohol dependence and a comparison with the approach to anorexia nervosa, in England and Wales. The focus is on two areas of law where questions of legal and mental capacity arise for people who are alcohol dependent: decisions about treatment for alcohol dependence and diminished responsibility for a killing. The mental incapacity tests used in these legal contexts (...) are importantly different—one involves a ‘cognitive’ test, while the other includes an explicit impaired-control limb—and the comparison provides insight into a longstanding debate about the virtues of one type of test over the other. It is shown that both kinds of test can take control problems into account, but also that both can be interpreted in narrow and wide ways that significantly influence the outcome of the assessment. It is therefore argued that to a large extent, it is not the kind of mental incapacity test that matters, but how the test is interpreted. It is further proposed that value judgements are playing an unrecognised and inappropriate role in shaping this interpretation. This raises concerns about the current approach to assessing the impact of alcohol dependency on the capacity to make decisions about alcohol use or treatment, as well as broader concerns about flexibility within incapacity tests. (shrink)

Introduction:Can nature be controlled?. Autonomous nature -- Greco-Roman concepts of nature -- Christianity and nature -- Nature personified : Renaissance ideas of nature -- Controlling nature. Vexing nature : Francis Bacon and the origins of experimentation -- Natural law : Spinoza on natura naturans and natura naturata -- Laws of nature :Lleibniz and Newton -- Epilogue : rambunctious nature in the twenty-first century.

In the following, the author presents a case for federally mandated gun control regulations. Specifically, the author argues—with reference to The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights—that the principle of limited government often used against federal gun control laws actually provides legitimate justification for them. The aim is to persuade gun advocates to accept such regulations from their own point of view.

The debate over gun control has taken place in complete isolation from geographical considerations. It focuses on, for the most part, whether legalization would bring about more or fewer accidental deaths, and murders of innocents, than prohibition, and in the USA on the precise meaning of the second amendment to the Constitution. However, these deliberations, argue the authors of the present paper, can be enriched by incorporating into them a spatial context. When this is done, and they are combined (...) with the property rights philosophy of libertarianism, some very different conclusions are drawn. (shrink)

Natures Way draws upon the latest research to show us how to get the most out of our green pharmacies on the doorstep. It can improve a range of mental health issues and support human creativity, cognition, and problem solving. This book outlines how nature repairs, renews, and supports our physiological systems.

I argue that location-specific gun bans are typically unjust. If there is a right to carry firearms outside of one’s home, then the state cannot prohibit gun owners from carrying their firearms into certain areas without assuming a special duty of protecting those whom it coercively disarms. This task is practically impossible in most of the areas where guns are commonly banned. Gun owners should therefore be allowed to carry their guns in most public places, including college campuses.

This article provides overview of the swarm intelligence and robotics fields, main characteristics of such systems provided, their advantages and disadvantages as well as differences from other multi-agent systems. Also, main fields of application for swarm systems with examples provided apart from short information on swarm optimizations. The problem of swarms’ control described and possible solutions for it such as algorithm replacement, parameters change, control through environment and leaders. Apart from that fields for possible future research noted.

Siu applies Oriental philosophy to the problems of Western executives and program directors.

The need to control violent and non-violent harm has been central to human existence since societies first emerged. This book analyses the problem of harm in world politics which stems from the fact that societies require the power to harm in order to defend themselves from internal and external threats, but must also control the capacity to harm so that people cannot kill, injure, humiliate or exploit others as they please. Andrew Linklater analyses writings in moral and (...) legal philosophy that define and classify forms of harm, and discusses the ways in which different theories of international relations suggest the power to harm can be controlled so that societies can co-exist with the minimum of violent and non-violent harm. Linklater argues for new connections between the English School study of international society and Norbert Elias' analysis of civilizing processes in order to advance the study of harm in world politics. (shrink)

According to the Institute of Medicine, chronic pain affects at least 116 million adults in the United States, which is more than the total affected by heart disease, cancer, and diabetes combined. Pain costs the nation up to $635 billion each year in medical treatment and lost productivity. It has been conceptualized as a public health problem due to its prevalence, seriousness, disparities, vulnerable populations, the utility of population health strategies, and the importance of prevention at both the population (...) and individual levels. For many patients, treatment of pain is inadequate due to uncertain diagnoses, societal stigma, the lack of effective treatments, and inadequate patient and clinician knowledge about the best ways to manage pain. This article explores the inadequate treatment of pain in the U.S. and the subsequent rise of prescription painkiller abuse, misuse, and overdoses. This is followed by a review of the actions taken by states to regulate the prescribing of controlled substances. (shrink)

This article offers a historical inquiry into behaviorism and its impact on standard of judgement concerning education policies. Drawing from Aldous Huxley’s reservation towards behaviorism as a scientific movement that naturalizes the role of control in human affairs, the paper maps the impact of behaviorism on economics of education. By tracing the influence of behaviorism in both rational (human capital theory) and quasi-rational (behavioral insight) economics, we draw attention to the activity of knowledge-making that describes and prescribes agency. The (...) paper demonstrates how policy instruments and outcomes are intimately linked to assumptions about personhood, and in the case of behavioral insight, they contribute to the scope of decision-making entrusted to government and business. Utilizing a genealogical approach, the paper invites ethical reflections on the long-term implications of behavioral economics in light of automation. (shrink)