Mill argues that gun control is more necessary now, in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting that occurred earlier this year, than ever because of the danger this poses to all citizens. However, Locke would disagree with this argument. He would argue that enforcing gun control limits the right to property that is inherent to all citizens and therefore is not a public issue that should be legislated upon.<\/p>\n
The blog post \u201cGun Control Regulation Needed Now More Than Ever\u201d argues that abuses to gun access has lead to an increase in gun violence and asks, \u201cHow many others need to be killed before people are willing to set aside their personal desires?\u201d Although this was written after an instance of gun abuse, Locke would still argue that this was an exception committed by someone who is not capable of full reason and therefore that person must be punished by society. In The Second Treatises of Civil Government<\/em> Locke says, \u201c\u201cthe state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind\u2026that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions\u201d (6).<\/p>\n Locke\u2019s emphasis on the value of life, liberty, and property allow him to dictate what he deems a public or a private issue. Locke believes that public issues should not be discusses by the government because they are important only to the individual they regard. The right to own a gun would fall into this public category because they are the property of the individual who owns them and therefore a natural right.<\/p>\n The blog post argues, \u201cOur duty as citizens is to maximize enjoyment. Therefore, people shouldn\u2019t be denied pleasures, such as guns for hunting, as long as they aren\u2019t harmful to others. Though it\u2019s imperative that we don\u2019t continue to partake in foolishness by supplying people with too much weaponry.\u201d Locke would disagree with this by saying that maximizing enjoyment and minimizing the amount of weaponry an individual can own infringes on their right to property and therefore is not a response of the government to control.<\/p>\n While Mill\u2019s argument about the importance of gun control is only intended to protect and support the community, Locke would be against it because of its attempt to control citizen\u2019s personal property. To Locke, the right to own a gun should not be taken away from reasonable and rational citizens merely as a response to irrational citizens that are few and far between. Locke would call for consequences on these citizens before he would support gun control because when a citizen harms another citizen it becomes a public issue and can be legislated upon.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Mill argues that gun control is more necessary now, in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting that occurred earlier this year, than ever because of the danger this poses to all citizens. However, Locke would disagree with this argument. … Continue reading