This week’s MSLD 634
blog topic is about a very controversial subject, gun control. LaFollete
(2007), Chapter 12, provides a remedy that could help those who want more
gun control and those who oppose any additional restrictions to gun control,
come together and find a resolution. Not a compromise mind you where there is a
winner and loser, but a resolution where both parties win (Levine, 2009, p.
78). The empirical evidence that there is a price to pay for the benefit for our
citizens to be able to own gun is not debatable. The evidence is overwhelming.
So why is it so difficult to make simple changes to the rules that govern gun
ownership to lessen the suffering of the innocent victims?
The Challenge
There are arguments that
gun ownership is a protected individual Constitutional right as framed by the 2nd
Amendment. Others argue the intent of the amendment is to provide the ability for
states to raise militias. Debating this usually leads nowhere. Conversations
about what the framers of the 2nd Amendment intended usually ends up
in an argument and once a conversation devolves into an argument, it is likely
little will get accomplished. Why, because attempting to make points on intent can
easily devolve into the slippery slope category of reasoning that should be
avoided (LaFollette, 2007, p. 143).
LaFollette (2007) concedes
that gun ownership as a derivative right and not a fundamental right (p. 182).
This position would make probably make most gun owner enthusiasts uncomfortable,
but it would seem that a reasonable person would find LaFollette’s rationale
for arriving at this conclusion to be sound. Simply stated, a fundamental right
is a right that protects a fundamental interest of one’s ability to “live a
good life” (p. 180). My personal view aligns perfectly with the view present in
LaFollette (2007); my problem had always been in articulating with precision.
This will not be a problem in the future.
There is another
perspective to add to gun ownership beyond what type of ‘right’ gun ownership
can be classified as. Gun ownership is in a very special category and this
category deserves special distinction. One that seems to be much more deeply
engrained in our DNA than the words that is written in ink on the document of
the Constitution. The Constitution protects many of our rights, including our
right to vote and presumably to bear arms as individuals. How many people get
out and exercise their right to vote come election time?
What must be recognized,
at least on equal footing as the 2nd Amendment, is the undisputable characterization
that gun ownership is a protected value of most Americans. Protected Values (PVs)
are typically off limits and not negotiable “People with these PVs do not think
these values should be sacrificed for any compensating benefit, no matter how
small the sacrifice or how large the benefit... The unbending nature of PVs
creates challenges for policy makers seeking to evaluate the trade-offs among
values.” (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2001, p. 251). In my mind, it is important
that any one attempting to find a resolution to the epidemic of gun violence in
our country, needs to go in with the understanding that gun ownership is a PV
that seems to call into action the flight or fight mode of thinking and shut
down any reasonable discussion on the topic. Well, that has been my experience
anyway.
A Rationale Remedy
LaFollette (2007)
provides a simple resolution to this sticky dilemma “I propose we make handgun
owners (and perhaps all gun owners) strictly liable for harm caused by the use
of their guns…To make this option more palatable, we could let gun owners
purchase liability insurance” (pp. 194-195). LaFollette, continues by
suggesting that other proposals could be better. Personally, this resolution
seems to be simple and easy to enforce and should have the consequence of
moving our culture of gun control from one that is ‘free-wheeling’ in some
regards, to one that accepts more personal responsibility.
So whether or not
LaFollette’s idea will work, how can we bring gun control advocates, gun
ownership enthusiasts, and government officials together to find an agreeable resolution?
Levine (2009) suggests that a path to finding resolution between these parties involves
seven steps, the first of which should be in my mind is to recognize a PV is at
the heart of the negotiation. With this in mind, the party that holds that
protected value should speak first and provide their vision of what a
resolution might look like “Remember, your vision is not as important as their
vision” (p. 134). This assumes you can even bring them to the negotiating
table. Again, because this is a PV, gun enthusiasts will often not be motivated
to even consider any additional gun restrictions.
Clearly, legislators don’t
need to gun enthusiasts to be involved in in a public debate to pass new legislation
that provides any new restrictions to gun ownership. This would however be a misstep
as LaFollette (2007) points out “There are always costs of enforcing a law.
Sometimes these costs are prohibitive, especially when the public does not support
that law” (p. 182). Further on in the text he cites the example of Prohibition
as support for this assertion, and it is an excellent example. For this reason,
public debate with gun enthusiasts is likely critical to an outcome all parties
will support, and ultimately lead to successful results.
Summary
The issue of alleviating
the suffering of gun violence victims will be with us so long as people have
guns. While it is true there are many objects that cause suffering and harm,
there are not that many objects designed to create harm that are legal.
LaFollette (2007) used dynamite (p. 194) as a great example of how ownership of
dynamite is very restrictive, as well it should be and provides a sound path to
finding a resolution to this dilemma that could be agreeable and create a
win-win situation for all involved.
References:
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into
collaboration. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Hoch, S. J., &
Kunreuther, H. C. (2001). Wharton on
making decisions. (1st edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
