On March 2, 2022 the Ohio House passed Senate Bill 215 (by a vote of 57-35). If signed into law by the governor, the bill would permit anyone 21 or older in Ohio to legally possess a handgun to be carried and concealed without a license or firearms training. The bill would also reduce penalties if a gun owner does not properly notify law enforcement they have a firearm in their possession.
Is this law justify? Does such a law make gun possession more dangerous? How does it compare to things like the possession of dangerous material such as poison, fertilizer and plutonium? Can the Harm to Others Principle justify restrictions and/or prohibitions on gun possession?
I believe that Bill 215 is unjustified and potentially dangerous. The main purpose of a gun is to harm things, even if they can be used as a tool or for fun. Even if I'm pro-2A, there still needs to be restrictions on concealed carry because of the Harm to Others Principle. The potential to hurt someone by concealing a secret weapon could be dangerous, and it isn't comparable to owning fertilizer. The main purpose of fertilizer is to promote growth in plant growth, not to be turned into an explosive. However, firearms are the complete opposite; their main purpose is to harm, and their secondary function is to be a tool. Preventative measures via restrictions are always better then letting people conceal guns whenever they feel like it.
ReplyDeleteI think this law is not justified in any way and is only going to provoke more danger and harm in our world. I think it makes gun possession so much more dangerous because it makes it easier for anyone over the age of 21 to have guns. There is no background check or training required anymore meaning that dangerous people who do not properly know how to use guns can possess them. Now, not everyone that owns a gun is dangerous and many people will get training so they don’t hurt others or themselves accidentally, but for the people who don’t, and the ones who are going to cause harm with those guns can now get them so easily. I think this can also make it easier for teenagers to get guns and possibly use them. I think that the laws we had for guns for a little loose for comfort but now they are way too lenient. I think this differs from substances like poison because poison can be used for different things that do not involve the harm of people, I do believe however that there should be more laws against obtaining it as if used can discreetly cause harm to people or groups of people. Both should have more security and laws but I think in our world today guns have more potential to be harmful and their main purpose is to be used against other things, supposedly for protection, but can also be used for malicious intents.
ReplyDeleteI believe this law is unjustified because if there are little to no restrictions on legally possessing a firearm, inevitably more innocent people will be harmed by the person in possession of the gun. Gun control is one of the most controversial issues that our nation faces today and many states are beginning to pass new legislation that will make it easier for anyone to own a gun. For example, the Ohio senate has passed Senate Bill 215 that warrants anyone 21 and older to own a gun without a license or firearm training certification. This bill also goes as far as to reduce punishments if a gun owner refuses to notify law enforcement that they are in possession of a gun. I believe that this ruling increases the risk of harm to other individuals because now gun owners without proper authorization or training can now use a gun at their will. Given the dangerous potential firearms have to end human lives and how historically gun violence has been a prevalent problem in this country, if guns are placed in the hands of people who don’t know how to properly use them, chaos and violence will follow. In addition, I believe Mill would agree with this because this law violates the harm to others principal. When more unqualified people get a hold of guns, people can become easily targeted and hurt. For example, if preventive measures are removed for guns, then the rate of mass school shootings will rise. If background checks and training are not required for owning a gun, then individuals who suffer from mental illness can easily access and use a weapon with the intent to harm students and teachers. In all, it is extremely unethical to enact Senate Bill 215 because removing gun restrictions will surely cause injury to civilians.
ReplyDeleteDue to the violent and dangerous nature of firearms, I do not believe this law is justified. Allowing people to carry a potentially dangerous weapon without any training is asking for trouble. In addition to violating basic common sense, Bill 215 also violates the harm to others principle. The risks associated with firearms are great; human lives are at stake. A gun poses a direct and severe threat to other people. For that reason alone, gun use should be heavily restricted by the government in order to protect the lives of others. This isn't to say firearms should be outlawed; proper training can ensure that firearm owners are responsible with the use of their weapon. People have the right to carry a weapon, but they must understand what that responsibility entails and be able to act accordingly. Having untrained gun owners in possession of a potentially deadly weapon strikes me as a recipe for disaster.
ReplyDeleteJohn Stuart Mill claims that if there is a sufficient risk of danger without compromising people's rights, regulations should be implemented; therefore, Senate Bill 215 is not justified. Two examples that Mill uses to prove the "Preventing Harm to Others" principle can be used to show exactly why. The first is that being drunk doesn't necessarily mean you will cause harm to others, however, if an individual has a history of violence while under the influence, then legal interference is justified. This explains why it is necessary to have measures in place, such as firearm training and background checks, that will ensure that guns won't get in the hands of potentially dangerous users. The second example Mill uses is that there should be regulations in place for a poison that could be used for a crime, such as documenting the purchaser's name and address, but the poison should not be banned. Mill also mentions that the right to prevent crimes makes it acceptable to impose restrictions. Although it would be an infringement of liberty to altogether ban the sales of guns, it is justified and almost the government's obligation to make it more difficult for certain people to get ahold of something that could be used to harm others. At first, Senate Bill 215 seems to give more freedom to Americans; however, after looking at Mill's "Preventing Harm to Others" principle, it is clear that it would actually take a step backward and remove reasonable and justified measures that reduce "Harm to Others."
ReplyDeleteI believe that Ohio Bill 215 is justified. With the passing of this bill, it makes it legal to carry without a conceal weapons permit. However, this does not make it any easier to obtain a firearm. Citizens are still required to pass the National Instant Criminal Background Check system (NICS) when they are purchasing a gun. The goal of the bill is to make the law closer to what the constitution says, “the right to bear arms.” I believe that with the passing of this bill, it makes society a safer place. In the past, the concealed weapons course is not an easy or convenient thing to easily do. Whether you are required to carry a permit or not, a criminal or someone with malicious intent is not going to care about the law. Passing this law will make it easier for law-abiding citizens to intervene when someone who was going to break the law, regardless of what it is, is causing harm to others. When comparing it to possession of other dangerous materials such as poison and plutonium I think that they are not even close to each other. As far as I know, there is no good use from poison and plutonium, that just straight up harms others. When it comes to the permit-less carry of firearms, it creates an opportunity for the good guy to be the hero and stop the person with malicious intent without having to go through an inconvenient course. In addition, when it comes to the good guys that are actually carrying a weapon, they are smart enough to train themselves on how to properly use their weapon when necessary. A responsible gun owner will spend time at the range to constantly familiarize themselves with their weapon to continue to get more comfortable with it. If there is someone who does not fully trust himself or herself with a weapon when it would be needed, then they do not have to carry one. Personally, it makes me feel safer when I am around a trustworthy person carrying a weapon so that if it is ever needed, we have a chance to fire back and save others. When I am of age, I will carry to not only make myself feel safer, but also those around me.
ReplyDeleteI think that this bill is not justified. It states nothing about gun safety and training and there is already a problem with gun violence and this bill is making it easier for people to use guns as harm. Guns are an easy act of violence and if an individual is carrying one (unknown with this bill) they could use it against harm towards another individual. Everything we have talked about in class is how laws and bills are made strictly for protecting others and this bill adds to the aspect of violence. Does this bill do anything to know if individuals have mental disorders or reason to harm others with their guns? No. And if there's an argument that guns can be used for self-defense, there are plenty of other things that can be used for protection that are not nearly as drastic or harmful.
ReplyDeleteI believe the bill proposed just a few days ago should not be justified. If you consider John Stuart Mills views on liberty and philosophy in general this is a clear take away. He states that just because in action may not guarantee harm, if there are other factors at play it needs to be reanalyzed. The application of this idea into this question would be if someone has a criminal history, they should have harder time obtaining a firearm, if they obtain it at all. He also talks about that you can implement restrictions and precaution to prevent crime or harm to others from being committed. An application of this would be background checks and a waiting period in between when you try to purchase the firearm to when you actually receive it. Firearms have a significantly higher death rate than the other examples including fertilizer, plutonium, and poison. I think the risk they present is one that should not be messed with or provided to the masses. While guns are not solely used for hurting innocent civilians, these are the stories that end up in the news headlines. Laws around guns provide comfort and safety for the people that are not in favor of them. Overall, I think enacting the bill would be unethical because the likelihood of endangering others is very high.
ReplyDeleteThis potential new law does not make any sense in my opinion, and I do not believe that it is justified in any way.
ReplyDeleteI believe that freedom and autonomy is very important and in an ideal society, every person would be completely free to do whatever they want. However, the Harm to Others Principle argues that people can think and act however they wish to, as long as this causes no harm to other people. Guns are a deadly weapon, and if a person is shot, there is a strong chance that they will not survive (although it is possible). Like we have talked about in class, there are other purposes for guns besides killing other people, so it does not make complete sense to strictly ban all guns. Permits, background checks, training, etc. are all examples of ways that we can avoid banning guns, but still keep the community a safer place. If the governor chooses to pass this law, all of this protection against harm to others goes out the window. People who should not have access to guns and pose a threat to society will be able to get a gun. I don’t believe that this law can be justified when the potential for harm to others is so great.
A counterargument, and the only possible justification I can think of, would be that putting this new law in place gives people more freedom to do what they want and less restrictions on people’s behavior and actions. Theoretically, the more freedom we have, the better off and happier we are as a community. However, I would argue that people’s safety outweighs people’s freedom, especially in this case.