Choose a Topic:  Choose a topic that is current.  It doesn’t have to be in the news at the moment, such as congressional ethics.  It can be an issue that is currently being debated, such as restorative justice or even abortion.

QUESTION

Choose a Topic:  Choose a topic that is current.  It doesn’t have to be in the news at the moment, such as congressional ethics.  It can be an issue that is currently being debated, such as restorative justice or even abortion.

Research your subject matter:  This can be done online; through secondary sources, such as books or newspapers; or through primary sources, such as interviews.  Please make sure that you research more than one perspective of your topic.  Your goal is to gain as much knowledge from different perspectives as possible.  Make sure you cite the sources.

Write a narrative of the topic:  Tell us what the issue is in a format that conveys a story.  Raise the issue/s in your narrative.

Analyze the subject matter:  Give pros and cons of each perspective.  Use data to support each position.  Think about how others would view this topic – utilitarians, contractarians, Kantians, etc.  Are you basing your conclusions on moral, rational or legal authority.

Conclusion:  After presenting your topic, presenting the different perspectives and using the information to base a conclusion that satisfies your ethical standards, explain what your opinion is about how this issue should be resolved.  Don’t worry about how others would decide the outcome – this is your conclusion. I never base a grade upon your conclusion.

The paper is to be 5 – 7 pages, 12 point, double-spaced.  Cover pages and citation pages are not considered to be part of the five page minimum.

In law school the format is Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion.  You can use this IRAC format or make your report more narrative.

I can tolerate minor spelling or grammatical errors, but please don’t challenge my tolerance.  Proper use of words such as you’re/your, they’re/there/their, two/to/too impress me.  Improper use does not.

Possible Topics:  Wire-tapping; congressional ethics, drones, gun control, immigration, truth in politics; police investigation and interrogation methods; death penalty; lawyers’ role in criminal justice; decriminalization of prostitution, gambling, drugs; abortion; white collar crime; torture; physician assisted suicide; electronic surveillance vs. bail; etc.

ANSWER

 The Debate on Gun Control: Striking a Balance between Rights and Public Safety

Introduction

The issue of gun control has been a topic of heated debate for many years, pitting the fundamental rights of individuals to bear arms against concerns about public safety and the prevention of gun violence. The central question revolves around finding the right balance between protecting individual freedoms and minimizing the potential harm that firearms can cause in society. This narrative will explore the perspectives surrounding gun control, analyze the arguments from various ethical frameworks, and present a conclusion based on moral and rational authority.

Perspectives on Gun Control

Proponents of Strict Gun Control

   Proponents of strict gun control argue that limiting access to firearms is necessary to reduce gun-related violence and protect public safety. They advocate for comprehensive background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons. They believe that stricter regulations can prevent gun deaths, mass shootings, and suicides. Supporters often cite research indicating a correlation between stricter gun control laws and lower firearm mortality rates.

Advocates for Gun Rights

   Advocates for gun rights emphasize the importance of the Second Amendment in protecting individual liberties. They argue that responsible citizens have the right to own firearms for self-defense, sport shooting, and as a safeguard against tyranny (Stroebe et al., 2017). They contend that strict gun control measures disproportionately burden law-abiding citizens and infringe upon their constitutional rights. Gun rights supporters often highlight instances where armed individuals have successfully defended themselves or others in dangerous situations.

Analyzing from Ethical Perspectives

Utilitarian Perspective Utilitarians would assess gun control policies by weighing the overall benefits and harms to society. They would consider factors such as reduced gun violence, the prevention of mass shootings, and increased public safety. Utilitarians might support stricter regulations if the potential reduction in harm outweighs any negative impact on individual gun owners’ rights.

Contractarian Perspective

   Contractarians focus on principles of fairness and mutual agreement. They would consider whether gun control measures align with a social contract that ensures the well-being and safety of all members of society (Gauthier, 1997). Contractarians might argue that reasonable restrictions on firearms are necessary to protect individuals from the potential harm caused by unrestricted access to guns.

Kantian Perspective

   Kantians emphasize the importance of individual autonomy and universal principles. They would evaluate gun control based on principles of moral duty and respect for human life (Law And Morality: A Kantian Perspective on JSTOR, n.d.). Kantians might argue that gun control measures are justified if they are designed to prevent harm to oneself or others and are consistent with principles of treating all individuals as ends in themselves.

Conclusion

Considering the various perspectives and ethical frameworks, it is evident that finding a resolution to the gun control debate is complex. While respecting individual rights is crucial, it is equally important to address the risks associated with widespread firearm ownership. Stricter regulations, including comprehensive background checks, mandatory training, and restrictions on certain types of firearms, can strike a balance between preserving individual liberties and ensuring public safety. By implementing evidence-based policies, we can work towards reducing gun violence while respecting the fundamental rights of citizens.

References

Gauthier, D. (1997). Political Contractarianism. Journal of Political Philosophy, 5(2), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00027 

Law and Morality: A Kantian Perspective on JSTOR. (n.d.). https://www.jstor.org/stable/1122670 

Stroebe, W., Leander, N. P., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2017). Is It a Dangerous World Out There? The Motivational Bases of American Gun Ownership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(8), 1071–1085. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217703952