Two years ago (2022) Gov. DeWine signed Senate Bill 215 into law. The law permits anyone 21 years or older in Ohio to legally possess a handgun to be carried and concealed without a license or firearms training. The bill would also reduce penalties if a gun owner does not properly notify law enforcement that they have a firearm in their possession.
Is this law justified? Does such a law make gun possession more dangerous? How does it compare to things like the possession of dangerous material such as poison, fertilizer and plutonium? Can the Harm to Others Principle justify restrictions and/or prohibitions on gun possession?
Throughout American history, gun ownership has been both perceived and granted as an inherent right. Some base this around the notion of self-defense, while others continue to live by the Second Amendment concept of maintaining a “well-regulated Militia” by giving the public access to arms. According to Mill’s “harm to others” principle, the State has the obligation to intervene in a situation if doing so can prevent significant harm. Had J.S. Mill been around during the early stages of America, the debate of whether or not gun ownership is justified would not have been very controversial—Mill would certainly argue for the liberty of gun possession.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Pew Research Center, approximately 22,000 people died of non-suicidal gun violence in the US in 2021. Considering only instances of “mass shootings” (“instances where individuals are engaged in killing or attempting to kill in a populated area”), the figure drops to the hundreds, ranging from 103-706 people depending on the definition. While the overall amount of gun deaths in America is near fifty thousand, it’s important to withold consideration of personal conflict and gun-induced suicide. It follows that there are between two and eight deaths per million gun owners. In the grand scheme of gun ownership in America, this figure of gun violence is astronomically low. Taking this into consideration, it is nearly impossible to say that gun ownership can be prohibited by J.S. Mill’s harm principle simply because the rate of harm is so astronomically low.
Because gun violence is not ubiquitous enough to oppose gun ownership with J.S. Mill’s harm principle, it would require a more paternialistic or utilitarian approach in order to negate. Consider Dworkin’s theory on paternalism: the state could very well impose restrictions on gun ownership and acquisition simply because that is what is best for people. It would require forgoing total "personal liberty" pertaining to gun possession. However, if lawmakers believe strongly that the restrictions will limit the destruction caused by guns, regulation would be easily justified under this principle.
Considering the possession of other dangerous materials such as poison, fertilizer, and plutonium, both Mill's and Dworkin's philosophies would be sufficient for justifying restrictions. First, possession of dangerous materials like plutonium would undoubtedly put others in danger, and therefore must be regulated by the state according to Mill. Secondly, given the severe danger of these materials, Dworkin's theory on paternalism would justify the state intervening simply to keep people safe.
Comparing guns with other dangerous objects such as poison, fertilizer and plutonium is particularly interesting in the American context due to the presence of the 2nd Amendment which states:
ReplyDelete"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Additionally, firearms are significantly different from hazardous materials due to their direct nature which makes them effective in situations like self defense or hunting (unless you want to throw a plutonium sphere at somebody).
Mill argues that the only time to infringe on liberty is when the action causes harm to others. Firearms are not the direct cause of violence, but rather a tool that can both enable or discourage it. It is for that reason I would argue the Harm to Others principle would not apply to firearm restrictions as its use for good or bad relies on the intentions of the one who bears it. For example, a baseball bat is a great piece of sports equipment, but it could also be used to bludgeon someone on the head. Therefore, I do not think Mill would have any issue with this law. I agree with only applying the harm to others principle when it comes to general bans, however I think there are also some great applications of legal paternalism when it comes to gun policy.
I think those who favor legal paternalism would certainly have some issues with S.B. 215. Allowing concealed carry without any form of training can present unnecessary dangers in the event of a negligent discharge. I think it is important for firearm owners to at least understand the basic rules of firearm safety. Other types of firearm training can be a double-edged sword. Requiring training in usage of the weapon could increase an individual's ability to inflict harm on others (in first case offenses, as they would not be obtaining it legally if they are already a felon), but could also be used to defend from harm. The same thing goes with notifying police officers. Officers would be much safer knowing if you did or did not have a firearm (and also wouldn't mistake you for a bad actor in a self defense situation), but creating a database of gun owners may be giving the government more information then they can be trusted with. Of course, guns involved in crimes can still be tracked to their owner thanks to sales records. Training or requiring concealed carry permit approval processes arguably have other benefits, such as proving that the individual has taken steps to be a responsible gun owner.
It is also important to note that we do have federal restrictions in firearms purchases (just like hazardous materials). Someone going through a law-abiding vendor has to pass an FBI background check to avoid selling firearms to convicted felons or individuals with a history of mental illness. The law requiring these mandatory checks follows both the harm to others (limiting convicted felons) and harm to self (limiting the mentally ill) principles without heavily restricting firearms. I think this is a good example of firearms policy that both sides of our political system would agree on.
In the US, the debate over the right to bear arms and gun restrictions is heavily controversial and has been throughout most of history. At the heart of the debate lie two opposing views, one claims that the right to own a firearm is a fundamental liberty, while the other side asserts that the ownership of firearms brings risks that outweigh those liberties. By applying John Stuart Mill's argument to this scenario we can better understand this ethical dilemma. Mill’s argument weighs liberties against harm to others to determine the optimal and moral rules of a government. To begin the analysis of this situation using Mill’s philosophies we first assume that people should have the right to bear arms before applying his principles. His first principle is his harm to others principle, which does apply since there is gun violence in America. However, due to the low percentage of deaths that are caused by guns, approximately 0.6% in 2021, according to statistics from Statista and the Pew Research Center, we can ignore the harm to others principle because there must be some tolerance for risk. While this analysis supports the legality of guns, it also advocates for the implementation of various restrictions, such as regulating gun transactions. In conclusion, Mill would find that guns should not be illegalized but he would most likely believe that there should be gun control laws throughout the US to further reduce the deaths and risk of the potential harm that come with guns.
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zto4dZK7T0X_x58uTstMaMnZCf6euLB7P4IlzYbcvFk/edit?usp=sharing
ReplyDeleteJohn Stuart Mill's harm principle asserts that the only justification for exerting power over a member of a community, against their will, is to prevent harm to others. Applying this to Senate Bill 215, the question arises: Does allowing concealed carry without a license or training increase the risk of harm to others? I would argue that it does not because if other safeguards, like background checks and licensed gun sales, remain intact, the potential for increased harm is minimal.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the notion that the mere presence of more firearms—carried by ostensibly law-abiding citizens—contributes positively to public safety is debatable. Research from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) found that 97.8 percent of mass shootings over a 68-year period (1950-May 2018) occurred in gun free zones. This is simply because someone who wants to commit violence to innocent people will target places where they have the lowest likelihood of being stopped by another person with a firearm. Having legal gun carrying stops this from happening, and allows a “good guy with a gun” to be on the scene far quicker than any police officer would be.
The personal autonomy to carry a concealed weapon without a license aligns with J.S. Mill’s views on liberty as long as it does not cause harm to others. Mill staunchly defends individual liberties, insisting that “[One’s] own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” (Mill 13) for impeding personal actions. As a general rule, however, it seems clear that Mill would support some sort of regulation. In fact, he argues that “The seller… might be required to enter in a register the exact time of the transaction, the name and address of the buyer, the precise quality and quantity sold; to ask the purpose for which it was wanted, and record the answer he received” (Mill 89). Good news! There are lots of regulations already in place. Background checks, banning of felons from owning, and red flag laws all exist. Therefore, Legal concealed carry has no conflict with J.S. Mill’s harm principle.