Citation

Hsiao T. Libertarian Pap. 2016; 8(2): 308-325.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2016, Libertarian papers)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Arguments for handgun ownership typically appeal to their value as an effective means of self-protection. Against this, critics argue that private ownership of handguns leads to more social harms than it is supposed to prevent. Both sides make powerful arguments, and in the absence of a reasonable consensus regarding the merits of gun ownership, David DeGrazia (2014a: 1) 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 '[a]n 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.' DeGrazia claims that owning a gun is self-defeating because the evidence indicates that one is more likely to commit suicide and be killed (whether intentionally or accidentally) if one has a gun in one's home. Accordingly, the strength of a permissive moral right to gun ownership is mitigated. But since gun ownership is not counterproductive with respect to everyone, DeGrazia proposes as a middle ground a policy under which the only individuals allowed to own handguns are those with a 'special need' for self-protection who have passed a rigorous course in handgun safety. He refers to this as 'moderate gun control.'

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 controls there ought to be, ​ even if ​ he is right about the empirical evidence. Here, our criticisms pertain not to his purported derivation of a moral right to own handguns, but to its scope. 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 should be enacted.

DeGrazia, D. (2014a). "Handguns, Moral Rights, and Physical Security" Journal of Moral Philosophy 11: 1-21

DeGrazia, D. (2014b). "The Case for Moderate Gun Control." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 24(1): 1-25

Language: en