Gun Control, School Shootings, Parkland School (FL) Shooting- Ethical Dilemma
Gun control is among the issues that have created a debate worldwide, mainly due to the rise in gun violence. Those supporting gun control argue that there is a need to regulate gun ownership to reduce gun violence. Those against gun control argue that people should be allowed to own guns to defend themselves, their property, and their loved ones. One of the main gun violence issues that have raised interest in discussing the measures that should be taken to regulate gun use, possession, and ownership is mass shootings in learning institutions. The United States has experienced various mass shooting incidents that have caught the attention of people worldwide because of the trauma that students experience after the incidents, physical injury, and death. According to Diaz (2022), there were 27 mass shootings in schools in 2022. The number is anticipated to increase as students continue getting access to guns from their parents or purchasing them on the streets. Therefore, gun control laws can effectively reduce mass shootings in schools by regulating gun ownership in households. Hire our assignment writing services in case your assignment is devastating you.
Background Information
The gun control ethical dilemma has been a global issue, but much focus has been on the United States because of the rise in gun violence in the country. The debate on gun regulation in the United States focuses on the right understanding of the Second Amendment as outlined in the United States Constitution (Cook & Goss, 2020). State governments are the primary regulators of gun ownership, and they establish gun control laws that are augmented to various levels by local and State policies. The United States federal government has restrictions on gun and ammunition commerce, gun ownership, and possession. The implementation of gun control laws is founded on the first clause of the Second Amendment. According to Duignan (2012), most courts in the United States until the 21st century assumed that the clause guaranteed the state’s right to maintain the right of people to bear and keep arms based on their service in a national territorial army. The assumption was consistent with various gun ownership and possession laws currently being applied in gun control. In 2008, the United States Supreme Court recognized the right to use firearms without being linked to state militia for traditionally lawful reasons, including self-defence in a home (Duignan, 2012). In 2010, the Supreme Court argued that the argument on the implementation of the first clause of the Second Amendment was relevant against local and State gun regulation laws and federal rulings.
According to Luca et al. (2020), the United States Congress has considered changing existing gun laws, especially after mass shootings that have caught people’s attention globally, such as the Las Vegas mass shooting in 2017 and the Parkland mass shooting in 2018. However, legislators recommending the changes have not managed to get enough support to pass the changes, leading to doomed bills that propose measures such as banning assault weapons, prohibiting the sale of a firearm to people on the government terrorism watch lists, and expanding background checks. By mid-2022, the United States government had not implemented federal laws banning the sale and ownership of semiautomatic weapons used in the military (Larson & Sassoon, 2022). This has created an opportunity for people to purchase guns and store them in their homes, increasing the threat of mass shootings. The gap in legislation is also among the main factors that enable people who have not met the legal requirements to purchase firearms to own firearms. The background check used to conclude whether a person is authorized to own a gun is also easy to avoid by buying guns from unlicensed sellers who are more focused on making money (Alcorn, 2018). Firearms are also easily accessible in the online black market, thus making it easier for unauthorized persons, including school children, to acquire guns. In addition, Wintemute (2009) notes that gun ownership is widespread because of the temporary firearm loaning that allows the transfer of firearms offered as gifts or those inherited from family and friends. Some federal and State laws also allow juveniles to buy guns from unlicensed dealers.
The issue of mass shootings in schools has created a need for federal law raising the minimum age for individuals to own any firearm and regulations focusing on preventing children from accessing guns at home. Gun ownership among underage children has also increased because of the underfunding and underreporting by the NICS (Timsina et al., 2020). The lack of reporting has also created various instances of the sale of guns to unauthorized people who may use the guns to commit a crime. During Barack Obama’s regime, the United States witnessed various mass shootings, such as the murder of teachers and students at Sandy Hook Elementary and the shooting at a nightclub in Florida. A meeting held in Congress to discuss the issue of gun violence resulted in the issuing of an executive order. The order made reforms in gun laws, including the expansion of background checks, requiring states to offer more information on people banned from purchasing guns, advocating for the use of smart-gun technology, and seeking more federal agents to conduct background checks. Although the orders helped reduce access to guns for people with a criminal record and underage individuals, the issue of mass shootings reemerged in 2017 after the Las Vegas shootings, where sixty people were killed.
In 2018, another mass shooting occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. The shooting happened after a student who had been expelled from the school entered the school on February 14 2018, and started shooting. Seventeen people were killed, and 17 others were physically harmed. The incident was recognized as the deadliest mass shooting at a school in United States history. Students who survived the incident used social media platforms to express their anger and advocate for legislation to increase safety. The incident raised parents’ concerns about their children’s safety in the learning environment where they spend most of their time. The incident also raised concerns among teachers and staff in learning institutions because of the safety threats. One of the outcomes of the incident was the signing of a bill that imposed a minimum age of 21 years as the requirement for purchasing a gun and a waiting period of three days on all gun purchases. Rick Scott, the governor of Florida, signed the bill. The law also allowed some school employees to be armed to protect students from mass shooters who may gain access to the school environment. The school responded by creating a Public Safety Act that was made a law in Florida. The law limited gun sales and expanded the resources for safety and law enforcement personnel.
Notably, the issue of mass shootings and the effectiveness of gun control laws in preventing them continues to create an ethical dilemma on the best approach to use in addressing the issue because of the increase in mass shootings in schools despite the existence of laws prohibiting the sale of guns to people below 21 years. According to Everytown (2022), mass shootings in schools accounted for 19% of gun-related deaths in the United States and 10% of everyone wounded and shot in schools between 2013 and 2021. However, the statistics do not include the impact of the shootings on children and communities where they occur. Roughly 15% of mass shooting incidents in schools are often unintentional. However, it is important to focus on the intentional mass shootings caused by mental issues such as stress and depression. It is also important to focus on the negligence of school security personnel, which enables students to sneak guns into the school compound. Failing to address the leading causes of mass shootings in schools from all viewpoints has long-term consequences for many victims (Lowe & Galea, 2015). Schools have a first-hand responsibility to address the issue through various measures, such as the approach used by Everytown. The approach includes tracking all gun violence cases in schools to create a comprehensive national database, including high schools, middle and elementary schools, preschools, universities, and colleges, and all situations when a gun discharges a live bullet into or inside a school building or onto campus grounds.
Everytown’s database indicates that there were 848 gun discharge incidents in schools between 2013 and 2021. Notably, 573 of the incidents occurred on preschool, middle, elementary, or high school grounds, leading to 392 injuries and 188 deaths (Everytown, 2022). Around 46% of the victims in the incidents were learners in the institutions. These statistics indicate the need to create a permanent solution for school mass shootings to prevent more deaths and injuries. Currently, the issue of mass shootings in schools is being approached based on three arguments. One of the arguments is based on the idea that gun control laws on gun possession, ownership, and areas where guns can be carried can help to reduce mass shootings in schools. The second argument is that preventing mass shootings is the school’s responsibility because schools should put proper security measures to screen students before entering the premises to ensure that they are not carrying firearms. The third argument is that parents and guardians can prevent mass shootings by ensuring they store their guns in places where children cannot access them because most school mass shooters use their parents’ guns.
Theory Application
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics introduces the idea of corrective and distributive justice. According to Aristotle (2012), distributive justice focuses on equality in the distribution of common goods to the people who share in the regime and assigns the goods based on the principle that everyone agrees with, which is desert or merit. Corrective justice focuses on transactions or contracts of an involuntary or voluntary nature by ignoring the differences in the merit of the people involved in the transaction. Corrective justice applies an arithmetical percentage to restore those involved in an unjust transaction to prevent equality by compensating the victim and inflicting a loss on the perpetrator. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics might recommend creating policies that impose heavy fines and imprisonment for those who violate the gun laws put in place to prevent the ownership and access to guns for individuals below 21 years, individuals with a mental illness, and individuals with a criminal record. Aristotle might also advocate for punishment for individuals who are not thorough in conducting background checks before selling guns to customers. The National Firearms Act requires gun owners to undergo a detailed background check, buy a tax stamp to manufacture a device or firearm and register a weapon with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives registry. Therefore, Aristotle might recommend considering the violation of these requirements as negligence that should be addressed by imposing liability on those who violate them. Violators may also be required to compensate those who are negatively impacted by the negligence, such as the people injured during mass shootings and the families of those who die as a result of the incidents.
Another applicable theory is Benedict’s ethical theory. Benedict’s ethical theory posits that if what a society considers acceptable as normal behaviours based on shared beliefs varies from one culture to another, morality would vary based on a person’s culture. The theory adds that each culture, based on common beliefs, settles on what is considered normal and acceptable behaviour within their society. Benedict might recommend considering the United States people’s beliefs about using guns for personal protection and the danger they pose to the community in creating a reasonable balance between gun ownership and possession and safety. Benedict might also recommend considering the political arguments about gun control laws. According to Sandel (2010), if a moral reflection moves back and forth between a person’s judgments in actual situations and the principles informing the judgments, there is a need for convictions and opinions and a philosophy that has not been tampered with to create a clear idea. Sandel (2010) also states that when a moral reflection becomes political and asks about the laws that should govern people’s collective lives, there is a need for engagement with the public, including the incidents and arguments that run in the public’s mind. Plato gives an example of debates that spur public interest, such as same-sex marriage and income inequality, and states that such debates prompt people to justify and articulate their political and moral convictions. For example, mass shootings are usually politicized as members of the public and legislators focus on how to reduce gun violence in the community. Guns are also deeply engraved in American society and the political debates in the country. For example, there is a debate about the effectiveness of the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution in addressing gun violence because it gives Americans the right to own firearms. Thus, it encourages most people in the United States to own guns so that they can defend themselves and protect themselves.
Professional Code Application
The NASW Code of Ethics relates to the ethical dilemma of gun control and mass shootings. It includes a set of standards guiding the professional conduct of social workers based on the core values of social work that inform the work that social workers do. The NASW Code of Ethics would recommend approaches that can be used to address the issue that is caused by mass shootings in schools. For example, the code suggests that social workers may be expected to violate the confidentiality of their clients to protect a client or other people from impending, severe injury. Most mass shooting perpetrators have underlying mental issues and thoughts to harm others. Therefore, social workers can disclose such information to the person’s parents or teachers so that they can closely monitor their behaviour and determine when they are about to commit an act that may harm others, such as a mass shooting. Social workers may justify their actions after disclosing a client’s information by stating that protecting life is a higher principle than safeguarding confidentiality. A social worker may also reveal that a person aged below 21 years old or with a record of mental illness possesses a gun, thus making it easier to confiscate the gun before it is used to harm others. The NASW Code of Ethics also suggests that a social worker should pay more attention to the needs of vulnerable people. Therefore, it would recommend giving social workers the authority to prevent gun sellers from selling a gun to someone who may not be emotionally stable. The NASW Code of Ethics would also recommend involving law enforcement officers to ensure that the person does not purchase a firearm illegally because they pose a threat to the people around them when they are armed.
Persuasive Arguments
The issue of mass shootings should be addressed by focusing on regulating gun possession and ownership. Instead of regulating the types of firearms that people should own, it is more practical to focus on regulating the people who may have access to firearms to reduce gun violence. Many mass shooting incidents occur because the guns land in the hands of individuals with mental illnesses such as stress and depression or a history of drug abuse, violence, or crime. According to Tracy et al. (2016), individuals with a history of drug use, violence, or crime may be sensitive to being provoked. They may exhibit behaviours that can be used as predictors of firearm use and possession. Teachers can help identify students experiencing these issues and notify their parents so that their behaviour at school and home can be monitored to avoid harming others. Parents should also monitor their children’s activities if they know that the child has a mental health issue or a history of crime, violence, and drug use. This would ensure they do not purchase firearms that could be used in mass shootings in schools and other public places. The policies that prevent the sale of guns to people with mental health issues and a history of crime, drug use, and violence should ensure minimal interference from law-abiding citizens who may express the need to possess and carry firearms. For example, law-abiding citizens with a history of alcohol use should not be banned from owning guns as long as they have maintained a record of observing the laws regulating the use of guns.
Focusing on laws that focus on keeping guns out of the reach of individuals with a high risk of violence has a significant advantage. Essentially, by targeting individuals at increased risk of using guns for violent activities, the government can avoid isolating gun owners who may assume that they are being targeted or blamed when the guns that they own and use are treated as the cause of the increase in mass shootings. For example, parents may argue that the laws controlling the type of guns people should own are blaming them or targeting them because of the types of guns used in mass shootings in schools. Therefore, they may feel frustrated. They may assume that their firearms are being taken away from them when their child is considered a high-risk individual because they are the common type of gun used in school mass shootings.
The second policy that can be used to address the gun control and mass shooting ethical dilemma is conducting background checks on everyone who intends to purchase a gun—one of the main factors contributing to the rise of mass shootings. Background checks ensure that people with a criminal record and underage people do not purchase guns. Background checks should be conducted by an independent federal body such as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This would help avoid bribery and corruption because individuals not authorized to own a gun based on the information revealed by a background check may bribe the person conducting the check to ignore the information so that they can purchase a firearm. States should also set gun storage requirements to avoid easy firearms access, especially in households with teens and children. Also, storing firearms unloaded in a locked place is essential in ensuring that the guns do not land in the wrong hands, such as being accessed by people who experience suicidal thoughts. It is also important to ensure that gun owners are held accountable if their guns are used in gun violence so that they can be more responsible in storing their firearms. For example, the State may set a minimum sentence of five years or life imprisonment depending on the crime the gun was used to commit.
The main advantage of using background checks and safety storage precautions in gun control is that the two practices reduce the chances of gun access for individuals with a background of violence and underage children. Also, this does not pose issues of discrimination, especially among minority groups who may feel that they are being banned from owning a gun due to stereotypes linked to their race. For example, African Americans may argue that they are being denied the chance to own a gun because of the history of violence and gangs in most African American neighbourhoods. The requirement for safe storage of guns is essential in ensuring that parents keep their guns away from their children, thus reducing mass shooting incidents in schools. After all, most children use their parents’ guns and access the guns without their parent’s knowledge. However, it is important to consider offering training on gun safety and storage to enlighten people on proper storage measures, especially in households with children and people with psychological health issues such as stress and depression.
Addressing the issue of mass shootings in schools requires collaboration between the federal government, state government, schools, parents, and the community. The responsibility to enhance safety in schools should not be left to the school because the school may put proper security measures in place. Still, as long as children have access to guns, the security measures may not be effective in preventing mass shootings because a child may bypass the security and sneak in guns. Therefore, schools’ primary responsibility is to train students on how to respond in case of a mass shooting incident. For example, schools can use drills to help students understand how to react to avoid getting injured during mass shootings. The federal and State governments play a major role in preventing mass shootings in schools because they are in charge of passing laws that regulate where a person can carry and purchase a gun. For example, the laws may include prohibiting anyone from carrying a gun in a school to reduce access to guns that can be used in mass shootings. For instance, school security personnel should not be allowed to carry a gun because a student may use it in a mass shooting, especially if the student has a history of violence, stress, and depression. Parents should play the role of safely storing their guns and ensuring that their children’s mental health and violent behaviour are closely monitored to prevent the likelihood of the child using the mass shooting to express their frustrations and anger. The role of the community is to report any gun dealers selling firearms to school children. The community is also responsible for ensuring that children with violent behaviour, stress, and depression get the help they need, especially if their parents are not concerned about them.
Objections and Response
Gun control will continue as long as gun violence incidents increase. Although gun control laws can effectively reduce mass shootings in schools by regulating gun ownership in households, there are various objections against this argument. One of the objections is that gun ownership laws create loopholes that enable unauthorized people to gain access to guns. For example, the law on mandatory background checks has been criticized because of the Charleston loophole. In most instances, when people want to purchase a gun and submit a background check, the Federal Bureau of Investigation must respond quickly, indicating whether a person is qualified to own a gun (Coleman et al., 2021). However, in some cases, system delays result in delays in generating results. Suppose the FBI is unable to complete a background check in three days. In that case, the seller can sell the gun to the buyer despite lacking information about the buyer’s background, leading to default proceed sales. The default sales are referred to as the Charleston loophole because it enabled a shooter who shot people at a church in Charleston to gain access to firearms (Coleman et al., 2021). The effectiveness of background checks has also been criticized because of the challenge of determining whether a specific restraining order or conviction qualifies to disqualify someone from owning a gun. For example, it may be difficult to determine whether a person should be disqualified from owning a gun if they have a conviction for domestic violence based on the relationship the individual had with the victim and the extent of domestic violence involved. The effectiveness of the NICS in conducting background checks has also been questioned because of challenges such as a lack of enough staff to conduct thorough background checks. This leads to an increase in the purchase of guns illegally because some people are not ready to wait for the long background check process. Although the objection demonstrates the weaknesses in gun control laws, it is mistaken because the federal government and the loopholes created by the laws can be sealed through licensing. The federal and State governments can issue gun licenses to individuals based on their occupation, age, and criminal record to limit the use of guns that may be purchased without a proper background check. Therefore, gun control laws are still effective in reducing mass shootings in schools because they can reduce gun ownership in households by granting licenses based on specific requirements and developing punishments for those who violate the laws.
Another objection to the argument that gun control laws can effectively reduce mass shootings in schools by regulating gun ownership in households is that gun control laws cannot effectively regulate gun ownership. This is because they do not have control over the private sale of guns. According to Coleman et al. (2021), private firearms sales are not regulated under the background checks system, thus making it hard to determine the official number of guns sold and the people who purchase them. The federal and State governments do not have a universal background check, thus undermining the effectiveness of gun safety laws prohibiting people with specific attributes from owning guns and laws on illegal gun trafficking. Therefore, individuals with a criminal record, mental illness, or a history of violence turn to private gun purchases to avoid background checks, thus increasing the risk of gun violence, including mass shootings. Private sellers also focus on generating money and may, therefore, sell a gun to a minor and probably overprice them because they are not required by law to conduct a background check, thus increasing the risk of mass shootings in schools. Concerns have also been raised about bribery and corruption in the private sector, leading to unregulated private sales of firearms, especially in states with high crime rates. Therefore, the gap in gun control laws makes it hard to effectively use the laws to regulate gun ownership in households to reduce gun violence. However, the objection is mistaken because the federal and State governments can trace the guns obtained illegally and confiscate them to avoid the illegal ownership of guns in households. Therefore, gun control laws can effectively reduce mass shootings in schools by regulating gun ownership in households because most guns used in mass shootings are obtained illegally.
Conclusion
Mass shootings in schools in the United States are a major issue that needs immediate attention to create a safe environment for learners and staff. Gun control laws can effectively reduce mass shootings in schools by regulating gun ownership in households. The leading cause of school mass shootings is the access to guns among children with mental health issues such as stress and depression and a history of violence and crime. Therefore, the federal and State governments need to improve gun ownership and possession laws to limit access to guns among children and ensure that parents are held accountable when their children use their guns in mass shootings. The research on the relationship between gun regulation and mass shootings is essential in enlightening policymakers on policies that should be implemented to ensure that children do not have access to guns either in their homes or by purchasing them. Although everyone has a responsibility to prevent children from accessing and learning how to use a gun, there is a need for gun control laws and a clear description of the punishment for violating them to emphasize the seriousness of violating gun ownership laws.
References
Alcorn, T. (2018). Gauging the impact of gun background checks. Injury Prevention, 24(1), 103–103. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042682
Aristotle. (2012). Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics. University of Chicago Press.
Coleman, M., Gordon, P., Parshall, J., Zhavoronkova, M., Wong, T. K., Buckles, M., Waldrop, T., Mirza, Z., Glass, A., Buchanan, M. J., & Banks, L. (2021). Dangerous gaps in gun laws exposed by the coronavirus gun sale surge. Centre for American Progress. Retrieved January 22, 2023, from https://www.americanprogress.org/article/dangerous-gaps-gun-laws-exposed-coronavirus-gun-sale-surge/
Cook, P. J., & Goss, K. A. (2020). Gun control in America. The Gun Debate. https://doi.org/10.1093/wentk/9780190073466.003.0006
Diaz, J. (2022). 27 school shootings have taken place so far this year. NPR. Retrieved January 22, 2023, from https://www.npr.org/2022/05/24/1101050970/2022-school-shootings-so-far
Duignan, B. (2012). Gun control in the U.S. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 22, 2023, from https://www.britannica.com/story/gun-control-in-the-us
Everytown. (2022). How to stop shootings and gun violence in schools: A plan to keep students safe. Everytown Research & Policy. Retrieved January 22, 2023, from https://everytownresearch.org/report/how-to-stop-shootings-and-gun-violence-in-schools/
Larson, H., & Sassoon, N. (2022). The US needs stricter gun control laws. The Chimes. Retrieved January 22, 2023, from https://chimesnewspaper.com/52168/opinions/the-us-needs-stricter-gun-control-laws/#:~:text=According%20to%20CFR%2C%20%E2%80%9CAs%20of,have%20any%20firearm%20safety%20training.%E2%80%9D
Lowe, S. R., & Galea, S. (2015). Posttraumatic stress in the aftermath of mass shootings. Traumatic Stress and Long-Term Recovery, 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18866-9_6
Luca, M., Malhotra, D., & Poliquin, C. (2020). The impact of mass shootings on gun policy. Journal of Public Economics, 181, 104083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2019.104083
Sandel, M. (2010). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? Penguin UK.
Timsina, L. R., Qiao, N., Mongalo, A. C., Vetor, A. N., Carroll, A. E., & Bell, T. M. (2020). National Instant Criminal Background Check and Youth Gun Carrying. Pediatrics, 145(1). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-1071
Tracy, M., Braga, A. A., & Papachristos, A. V. (2016). The transmission of guns and other weapon-involved violence within social networks. Epidemiologic Reviews, mxv009. https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxv009
Wintemute, G. J. (2009). Disproportionate sales of crime guns among licensed handgun retailers in the United States: A case-control study. Injury Prevention, 15(5), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2007.017301.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Introduction (half a page): Engagingly draw in the reader. Introduce and contextualize your topic. Make the last sentence a thesis clearly stating the solution you will defend.
Gun Control, School Shootings, Parkland School (FL) Shooting- Ethical Dilemma
Background information (5 to 7 pages): Present background details about your ethical dilemma, including how it arises in a profession, relevant facts, history, laws, and current events, and some responses to the dilemma that have been considered. Give a general overview while focusing on facts that will inform your persuasive arguments later in the paper. Draw on reliable sources, noting any relevant areas of bias.
Cite from 8 outside research sources as part of the background section. 5 should be peer-reviewed sources (scholarly journal articles or books published by university presses) from 2000 or later. Other sources include news reports, essays, interviews, or videos from reputable and unbiased authorities.
Theory Application (2 pages): Choose two ethical theories covered in the course—those of (a) Benedict, (b) Kant, (c) Regan, (d) Mill, (e) Noddings, or (f) Aristotle. For each of the two, take a paragraph to summarize the view and explain in detail what it might recommend regarding your dilemma. Cite details from the relevant course reading for each theory.
Professional Code Application (1 page): Choose a professional code of ethics related to your dilemma and explain in detail what it would recommend about your topic, citing from the code of ethics.
Persuasive Arguments (4 to 6 pages): Defend a specific solution to your dilemma using logically compelling arguments. Do not just survey different sides of the debate or summarize views you found in your research. Instead, defend a specific thesis with your creative arguments. Include details about your proposed solution, reasons it should be adopted, and ethical concepts that support it. Use facts from your research sources to support your main claims.
Objections and Response (2 to 3 pages): After giving your arguments, address two or three possible objections to your thesis. An objection is an argument or concern that might be raised against your view. For each objection, describe what it involves first, then show why it is mistaken and does not undermine your main claims. Respond to each objection and show that your thesis is correct.