The right
to private property as addressed in the fifth chapter of Opello and Rosow is a
natural right that is integral to the values of a liberal state. The basis for this law is to create an
environment in which citizens of the state have the means to conduct their
lives in whatever way they see fit. It
is meant to help individuals to practice whatever hobbies, occupations,
religions, and so on that they wish to be involved in. As I read though the passage that explained
how the right to secure possessions is a crucial part of being given natural
rights, I couldn’t help but to consider the ill effects of this concept in
practice in our modern times. For
example, the right to bear arms, which is written in our constitution, is
directly related to the concept of being able to acquire whatever possessions
you want. This right, which is
considered to be a pillar of individual freedom for our citizens has also been
seen as a danger to free citizens of the country.
The right
to bear arms was originally instituted as a way of giving citizens the ability
to raise a militia and fight. However,
in our time it has become an increasingly dangerous right that in many cases
has resulted in civilian deaths. One of
the most striking examples of the risks we face as a country because of the
right to bear arms is Sandy Hook Elementary.
In this instance an unstable man was in the possession of a legally
obtained gun and used it to kill small children in an elementary school. The issue we run into here deals with what
happens when one person natural right to possession gets in the way of another
individuals right to life.
In Opello
and Rosow it is stated that the right to private property and the ability to
buy and sell items as we please is a liberal concept that helps to encourage
freedom and liberty and most importantly life.
However, in our modern times with the weapons we now have available I
believe that by giving certain individuals access to deadly weapons we are in
fact taking away innocent peoples right to life. If through the right to property we hinder
peoples right to life, then regulation is necessary to establish safety, because
of this I strongly believe that a liberal state that is right-based is
ultimately dangerous for its citizens.
Although
citizens of a state should be able to practice most rights that are connected
to liberalism, I believe government fails us if it does not help us to keep
citizens alive to the best of its ability.
The most important natural right is that to life. Although I firmly agree with many natural
rights that liberal state supports, at some point the government should have
the power to take away certain right in the interest of protecting their
citizens.
While I agree with you in theory, my argument when it comes to gun control is that a man such as the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook tragedy will find a firearm whether or not he is able to acquire it legally. Many people today possess illegal firearms bought on the street or through another manner, and an individual who is determined to commit suicide after murdering other people will likely not be deterred by the legality of guns. I agree (for the reasons you mentioned) that it should be more difficult for individuals to acquire guns. If they should be able to at all, perhaps some sort of mental evaluation should take place before providing an individual with a gun. However, for reasons stated above, I do not think that simply outlawing guns will prevent tragedies such as Sand Hook from happening. The process should be modified, but it is certainly not the only step that needs to be taken.
ReplyDeleteYou've made a fair point about the possibility of private property infringing upon the public group. However, I am unsure if a direct correlation can be drawn between gun ownership and gun deaths. In 2013, roughly 10,000 people died in some way because of guns. While this is tragic, we have to compare it to the number guns currently in public hands, which stands at around 270 million. Taken together, it shows that the average gun has a very small chance of actually killing someone.
ReplyDeleteThat said, in order to take both sides, it is only fair to point out that men like Hobbes and other Liberal thinkers at the time, likely did not imagine a world with such extensive police forces, information networks, and other modern security features. While the societal cost of gun ownership may be very low, if there is no longer a societal benefit to having them, then perhaps a fair argument could be made for tighter gun control.