The topic of gun rights is a very important one right now, home to different viewpoints and opinions. In the United States, gun rights become a topic of public conversation with every mass shooting. In 2018, 14,647 deaths were linked to gun violence in the United States. This figure includes deaths from mass shootings which, as isolated acts, accounted for 340 incidents. Similar figures were also reported for previous years. Evaluating this data, Amnesty International released a report assessing the extent of gun violence in the United States and analyzing laws and policies governing gun rights against international human rights standards. The report concludes that because of continued gun violence, high rates of gun ownership, and easy access to guns for those who are likely to misuse them, the United States is not fail to fulfill their duty to protect human rights2. Amnesty International is a long-standing, Nobel Prize-winning organization with branches around the world. A report like this, accompanied by data on gun violence showing little change over time, makes the debate between gun rights and gun control valid. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayThe Second Amendment to the United States Constitution gives Americans the right to own and use firearms3. A right rooted in the legal foundations of a country may be difficult to change or modify. Nevertheless, an evaluation of the ethical arguments for and against uncontrolled gun rights is important and will be carried out in an attempt to determine whether human rights related to quality of life are indeed affected. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, quality of life is defined as the level of satisfaction and comfort enjoyed by a person or a group4. Quality of life is however a subjective term and as such is difficult to measure and define as it relates to many aspects such as health, disability, educational opportunities, employment, housing, relationships, expectations, goals, safety and security, to name a few5. . However, for the purposes of this discussion, the Cambridge definition will be adopted and therefore factors that undermine comfort levels in health, safety and security can be considered to undermine quality of life. Let's start with the perspective that, "Gun rights should not be controlled for the sake of improving people's quality of life." » Proponents of this view focus on the ethical idea that the right to own a firearm arises from a fundamental (prima facie) right to protection. According to Michael Huemer, professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado and author of the articles “Is There a Right to Own a Gun? and “Gun Rights as Deontic Constraints,” people have the right to defend themselves. Banning or limiting gun ownership will violate this right and cause individuals to suffer crimes they might otherwise have avoided. He further explains that for controls to be implemented and gun ownership to be restricted, they must be proven to prevent greater harm than that caused to those whose rights have been taken away by these controls. Huemer argues that if a gun ban existed, those who legally own their guns for personal defense would comply with restitution.their weapons, while those who own illegal weapons would not. This will still leave the guns in criminal hands since these firearms are unknown and undocumented. Huemer's argument is credible, as a doctoral student in ethics and political philosophy, his articles have been published in prominent journals of philosophy and social theory. After studying his ideas, examples exist: The Washington Post, a reliable news source, confirms that 80 percent of gun-related deaths were caused by illegal firearms and that only 18 percent are caused by legally owned weapons.6. The strength of Huemer's argument that gun controls and bans violate the right to self-defense makes it difficult to prove that this prima facie right is unfounded or can be outweighed by other considerations. Removing the right to self-defense in cases of intrusion or harassment would be an example of such a rights violation. Indeed, it is a strong argument, often used by the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) to aggressively lobby for gun rights, asserting that individual freedoms, particularly the freedom of to protect, would be removed if gun rights were violated7. the perspective has weaknesses. Huemer, for example, bases his argument on hypothetical scenarios of complete gun bans, leaving no room for discussion of the effects of controls and whether such placements actually affect the right of self-defense. He even states that widespread gun ownership has a social cost and that the state is incapable of identifying in advance individuals who will misuse their weapons. The state's best method of reducing the social cost is therefore to prevent even noncriminal citizens from owning guns. firearms8. Such a declaration therefore recognizes the threats associated with gun rights and provides a clear path for gun control advocates to advance their cause. For example, survey-based studies by David Hemenway, professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, show that guns are used more for intimidation than for self-defense9 and that the actual use of firearms for self-defense is quite rare and not commonplace. is more effective in preventing injuries than other defensive actions10. Now consider the perspective that “gun rights should be controlled in order to improve people's quality of life.” According to David DeGrazia, professor of philosophy at George Washington University in Washington DC and author of On the Ethics of American Gun Ownership, when evaluating gun rights, there is another relevant right beyond the right self-defense to take into account: the right to avoid being shot. There are two rights on this ethical platform, and neither can dominate the other. Gun rights cannot be so unregulated and lax that people's right to safety from guns is violated. Establishing controls will balance both the right to firearms and the right not to be killed or injured by these weapons. In his argument, DeGrazia further asserts that the current state of gun rights in America does not strengthen citizens' control over their safety. In fact, these rights put the lives of gun owners in even greater danger. In a book he co-authored with Lester Hunt, “Debating Gun Control: How Much Regulator Do We Need?” on gun violence. Basic background checks ensure the consumer is not a convicted felon or suffering from an illnessmental. He gives the example of guns purchased at gun shows for which basic checks are not required, allowing anyone to acquire a gun and bypassing even the smallest checks that may be imposed by the federal government. DeGrazia recommends different controls and emphasizes that governments should engage in an ethical policy that acts on this endangerment of the population. David DeGrazia's arguments are also valid. As a professor of philosophy, his research in theoretical and applied ethics has been published in books and academic journals, making him a credible proponent of a counterperspective. To support his point of view, DeGrazia relies on study data that proves the risk of death by homicide or suicide is greater in homes equipped with guns than in those without them. It further shows that states and countries with low gun ownership rates and strict gun control measures have lower gun death rates than those without11. Indeed, the Amnesty International report mentioned above offers a list of recommendations similar to those proposed by DeGrazia, further supporting his argument for gun control. . Australia, for example, implemented stricter gun controls after experiencing a mass shooting in 1996. In the years since, no mass shootings (defined as injuring at least 5 or killed) took place and there was a marked decline in homicides and suicides with rates of 3%. annual decline before gun laws were enforced, with an increase of up to 5% for such incidents after the laws took effect12. Japan, with similar restrictions, also has very low rates of gun violence, with an annual rate of all gun deaths (per 100,000 population) below 0.04 between 2007 and 2014. 13 America, compared to Japan, on exactly the same measures, has annual rates 100 times higher. , standing at over 10.3 for these 14 years. Finally, the idea of ​​a right not to be shot is also linked to the fear and anxiety of being shot, defending this right we not only increase the feeling of security but we also reduce fear which, in the link is now linked to the quality of life. Nonetheless, there are weaknesses associated with the evidence DeGrazia uses to argue for gun control. On the one hand, there are very few studies in the United States on the effects of widespread gun ownership, and relying on such limited data may weaken this argument. Additionally, when comparing data from other countries, caution should be exercised as some factors may be related to cultural and societal habits that may not exist elsewhere and may have influenced the data. In fact, the Rand Corporation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization, referenced and evaluated most existing studies related to gun policy in the United States, finding that they lacked methods to to identify possible causal effects15. and against gun control, I believe that gun rights should be controlled in order to improve people's quality of life. The main reason comes from the source that supports this perspective and the idea that there is no predominant right (that of self-defense) above other rights (that of not being shot and to be safe). By controlling the right to firearms, it is possible to take into account all rights, including that of self-defense.