Ayn Rand believes that American citizens should have the right to carry arms whenever, wherever, and whatever type they see fit. In the article Gun Control Regulations Are Pointless, she makes the argument that “if someone wants to own a gun because it makes them feel safe, or because they enjoy the sport of hunting, then the government does not have the right to keep them from doing so.” She defends this individualistic position by stating that “man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.” However, there have been a number of incidents that have made someone’s ability to own a gun less of a priority since it is indirectly harming the public due to mass gun violence.
With the concept of open carry, people assume that having a firearm in their possession means that they will be able to defend themselves against an attacker. Under the idea of individualist pursuit, Rand believes it is lawful to be able to access your own belongings at any time so that someone can achieve personal happiness “because they have a right to self-defense.” However, people are not considering the dangerous indirect consequences of the open carry policy. People are not considering that by carrying a gun, they are automatically making themselves an initial target to skillfully planned killers. Also, there is the possibility that the shooter has more experience with guns than the owner of the gun and the shooter may be capable of taking the gun away from them. This is risking the gun owner’s life by possessing an object that might actually harm them because they are not fully equip to handle a given situation.
Furthermore, we must continue to consider the dangers associated with lax gun control laws. There should be more gun regulations so that people do not harm themselves or their loved ones. More people have been committing mass shootings because they have easy access to large quantities of ammunition. A lot of the mass shooters were diagnosed as mentally unstable, questioning whether or not it was safe for these individuals to even have access to a gun, let alone additional heavy machinery. There was also a period of time when children were accidentally shooting people because they would manage to get ahold of their parents’ gun, not knowing the repercussions of the object. These instances could have been avoided if we had stronger laws that regulated how easy it is for someone to take hold of a gun and where a gun is allowed to be kept.
In contrast with Rand, I state in my book, The Public and Its Problems that “the perception of consequences which are projected in important ways beyond the persons and associations directly concerned in them is the source of a public.” (61) The fact the hundreds of innocent people are being killed each year due to violence is a public concern. Yes, implementing stronger laws that restrict gun owners to having a certain amount of guns in certain places, does infringe on an individual’s pursuit of happiness. However, taking away the rights of individuals is necessary if we are trying to stop the indirect consequences of death taking place. Rand even states that “someone with a clean record is not immune to psychotic breaks, so even someone who passes a background check with flying colors could still use their gun in destructive ways.” Therefore, if it is possible that someone unsuspecting could begin using weaponry to harm the public, there should be laws that restrict the presence of guns in public areas to avoid potentially fatal consequences.
With, a society as large as ours, it is no longer reasonable to think in individualistic terms. Rand argues that “if a person is wanting to purchase a gun with the intent of using it in criminal ways, they will find a gun one way or another.” However, this is exactly why we need to enforce stronger gun laws, so that people who should not have guns, won’t have access to them. We must consider the potential consequences that arise from not imposing laws that benefit the safety of the entire society.