12 November 2010 CES H102-29 Jessica Lau Page 1 of 2

Ethics Assignment

Problem:
Should any citizen of the United States having neither a criminal record nor a history of
mental illness be allowed to purchase fully automatic weapons ("machine guns") and if
so, should they be required to have a license and have proper training in the use of such
weapons?

Step 1

Issues
 If it were illegal to own fully automatic weapons, citizens’ freedom to own weapons
would be infringed upon.
 Owning fully automatic weapons may be cause panic and worry about the personal
safety.
 Owning fully automatic weapons may be cause panic and worry about the safety of the
community.
 Not allowing the purchase of fully automatic weapons may be a violation of
constitutional rights.
 Licensing and training of weapons owners may be difficult to enforce and it will cost
time and money.
 The definition of eligibility to own a weapon may be difficult to enforce.
Stakeholders
 All United States citizens
 The federal government
 All state governments
 Law enforcement (i.e. police)
 Those in charge of licensing and licensing bureaus
 Weapons vendors

Step 2

Consequences
 Weapon ownership gives citizens a sense of protection.
 If citizens misuse their weapons intentionally and choose to use them in harm, people
will be injured or killed (crime rates would increase).
 Citizens who own weapons could be prone to accidental usage. The first response to a
potentially hostile attack could shift to immediately using the weapon instead of gauging
the situation first.
 Determining the terms of eligibility for gun ownership could be controversial. A criminal
record could be something as negligible as shoplifting as a teenager on a dare. If family
history is traced back far enough, there would be many with a connection to mental
illness. It would be controversial finding a cutoff point as to how far back or how far out
(for example, 2nd cousins twice removed?) the family history would be considered.
 If citizens are denied the right to possess arms, they could claim a violation of their
constitutional rights to bear arms.
12 November 2010 CES H102-29 Jessica Lau Page 2 of 2
Ethics Assignment

 There are mental illnesses that manifest themselves later on, potentially when it’s too late
and the citizens have the weapons already.
 Coming up with licensing and training programs/requirements could be controversial. To
which level of expertise should the citizens be trained (police/military)?
 The cost of licensing and training programs would be exorbitant
Intent
 Should any United States citizen without criminal record or mental illness be able to own
be allowed to own fully automatic weapons?
 Should a license be required to own fully automatic weapons?
 Would I be comfortable with risking others’ lives by letting fully automatic weapons be
legal?
 Would I be comfortable knowing that others around me have access to fully automatic
weapons and may not be fully trustworthy with them?
Character
 Would a person of good character condone personal use of fully automatic weapons?
 How would the use of these fully automatic weapons affect my character?
 Would a person I revere condone the use of fully automatic weapons?

Step 3

Correlating Perspectives

After viewing the three perspectives on the subject of owning fully automatic weapons,
we conclude that no United States citizen, even without criminal record or mental illness, should
be allowed to purchase fully automatic weapons. This conclusion is supported by the negative
consequences outweighing the positive consequences if fully automatic weapons were allowed to
be purchased by citizens. We feel that a person of good character would not condone the
prevalent ownership of fully automatic weapons: the variability and lack of precision in
determining ownership qualifications and training programs makes for a process that lacks
integrity.
Citizens would not feel safe knowing that a wide population in the United States has ready
access to fully automatic weapons. The task of legislating and enforcing the proper use and
licensing of them is almost insurmountable; the process would be prohibitively expensive and
lead to negative moral consequences. For example, crime rates would likely increase. The federal
and state governments would be in charge of implementing new legislation that allows for the
widespread ownership of fully automatic weapons—a lengthy process where time would be
better spent with other more pressing issues. Law enforcement could see an increase in crime
rates and misuse of weapons, leading to an increased work load. The very fabric of society and
interpersonal relations could shift—no one would be able to trust everyone else, after incidents
where weapons are mistakenly fired (either with good or bad intentions) or if someone deemed
mentally fit turns out not to be and does harm with the already-acquired weapon.