Three years ago (2022) Gov. DeWine signed Senate Bill 215 into law. The law permits anyone 21 years 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 that they have a firearm in their possession.
Is this law justified? 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?
Senate Bill 215 is an unjustified law because it sacrifices public safety for the sake of unrestricted individual rights, a stance that directly conflicts with Mill's Harm to Others Principle. This principle holds that individuals' liberty should only be limited when one’s actions pose a significant risk of harm to others. By removing mandatory licensing, training, and reducing penalties, the law creates conditions where those with the intention to harm are enabled, and even well-intentioned gun owners might inadvertently cause serious harm.
ReplyDeleteSupporters of the law may argue that responsible citizens should not be burdened or punished with excessive regulation; however, this view overlooks the essential role that structured governmental oversight plays in harm mitigation. Considering substances like rat poison and fertilizer: while each has clear, beneficial applications—effective pest control and agricultural support, respectively—they remain subject to strict regulation precisely because their misuse can lead to unintended or intentional harm. Similarly, although firearms provide important benefits for self-defense and recreational use, their potential for irreversible harm increases dramatically when regulations are too lax.
Addressing whether the Harm to Others Principle can justify restrictions on gun possession, the answer is a clear yes. When the potential for harm is significantly amplified by unregulated access, it is not only reasonable but expected to impose measures that protect the broader community. By eliminating critical safety requirements, Senate Bill 215 elevates the risk of accidental injury and impairs effective law enforcement response, thereby violating the very essence of Mill’s principle—which is to limit individual freedom only when it poses a clear danger to others.
According to the Harm to Others principle from his essay On Liberty in support of liberalism, Mill would disagree with Senate Bill 215 while supporting moderate restrictions on gun possession. In his discussion of the limits of society and government over the individual, Mill asserts that “[a]s soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it becomes open to discussion” (Mill 73). Concerning gun ownership, the stated rationale implies that reasonable constraints on the sale of firearms are justified since they measurably prevent serious injury to society. In this way, gun control is significantly more legitimate than restrictions on substances such as alcohol. Society can only regulate the use of substances with the Harm to Self Principle, a recognizable and paternalistic departure from Mill’s utilitarianism, while guns can easily lead to concrete damage against others. However, in the later exploration of poison in On Liberty, Mill argues that “[i]f poisons were never bought or used for any purpose except the commission of murder, it would be right to prohibit their manufacture and sale. They may… be wanted not only for innocent but for useful purposes [perhaps rat extermination], and restrictions cannot be imposed in the one case without operating in the other” (95). While the case of poisons may appear to forbid gun control, firearms pose a markedly greater threat to the public than dangerous chemicals that Mill never foresaw when he so naively simplified the scope of governmental authority with a single principle. Guns are more akin to the limitations of free speech that the author explains in Chapter III: “[a]n opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor… ought to be unmolested when simply circulated orally through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer” (53). Although guns may indeed serve a useful purpose in hunting and self-defense, their extraordinary ability to maim and kill on a mass scale justifies their societal regulation.
ReplyDeleteSenate Bill 215 is an unjustified act implemented by Governor Mike Dewine. The main controversy is with the intention of the law. Personally, I wonder how this law can better the community and make it a safer place, especially as gun related crimes are at all time highs. Undoubtedly, this law caters to supporters of less restrictive laws and pro-gun advocators. In their argument, they would most likely suggest that taking away their liberties is unnecessary especially when their intention is not to harm people. However, Mill would directly argue this point for a couple main reasons. First, enabling an underdeveloped human decision making system access to a deadly weapon and no training can tempt them to do things that violate the harm to others principle. Following this principle, teens might accidentally harm friends, family, or strangers due to their lack of experience with a firearm. Additionally, teens are specifically susceptible to feelings of depression and suicidal thoughts. With no background check or training requirement, individuals could burden their families when they otherwise could have sought help in other forms. As the topic relates to comparable products like poison and fertilizer, there is difference, principally when it comes to intention. First, poison is harder to argue, as most cases harm done by the product is accidental, however, things that contain poisonous material to humans also help complete other tasks, like detergent in washing clothes. Fertilizers are mostly handled by professionals or experienced workers that know how to safely use it to cleanse items like produce. Farmer also must follow strict guidelines regarding the amount of fertilizer to ensure that their products are safe to consume. This is where the primary juxtaposition presents itself between possible harmful tools. In most cases, government restricts these tools so that they can minimize the risk of harm when they are utilized. Senate Bill 215, though, imposes the idea that the government has turned over their control on possible gun safety to enable liberties for some people when, in reality, the potential amount of people harmed is a much greater number. For context, the government previously required that conceal carry owners complete background checks and safety training so that they could maintain their freedoms while significantly reducing the potential harm done to others. I feel as though this is a much better course of action and is easily justified if one was to compare it to things like fertilizer or other limited but legal tools that can cause harm while satisfying its users.
ReplyDeleteSenate Bill 215 is not justified; all it does is streamline the purchase of a handgun, which goes against Mill’s belief in selling dangerous products. Mill believes that to sell a product that can be used to harm, using poison as an example, there must be a deterrence when you purchase the item. He specifically used the logging of the person purchasing the poison as an example; if someone gets poisoned, they are a suspect. The licenses needed to conceal carry is a deterrence; so many people buy guns that it would be hard to create a small list of suspects, but fewer people have a conceal carry licenses. Someone could just conceal their gun anyway, but people can also steal poison; creating roadblocks in any way is a deterrence. Lessening the penalty for not notifying the police about having a gun is also very bad. There is no logical reason to keep this information from the police unless you have malicious intent. It will lead to more deaths of people who own guns if the police find one on their person and the death of officers who weren't expecting someone to have a gun. The worst of the three, though, is the lack of training required to purchase. It is very easy to kill someone or yourself with a gun accidentally, especially without training. You cannot drive a car without a learner's permit, why should guns have less? This will not lead to death due to malice, people will die because of ignorance. The harm to others principle can apply, it applies to cars. Would you let someone without a license drive on the street?
ReplyDeleteBill 215 signed into law by Gov. DeWine is not justified because it makes gun ownership even more potentially harmful and unregulated, which goes against Mill’s ideas about buying and owning potentially harmful items. When discussing the topic of purchasing harmful items, Mill advocates for reasonable restrictions and regulations to prevent harm to others, but not full prohibition because that would inhibit personal freedom. One of the main suggestions Mill makes is requiring identification and intent for the purchase of dangerous items. He states “The sale of poisons may be properly regulated, the buyer being required to make his name and address known, and perhaps to attest a specific purpose for the purchase.” This is the kind of regulation that Mill deemed reasonable. Having registration allows for guns to be tracked, making it much easier to hold people responsible for misuse and therefore help discourage it. Without it, anyone can walk into a gun store, come out with a deadly weapon, and do whatever they want with it. This is the very restriction that DeWine removed from Ohio law. This law will certainly bring harm to others by allowing dangerous items to go unregulated. On top of deregulation, the bill also removed the requirement for firearm training, meaning that those unregistered firearms are carried by people with no training in how or when to use it, or how to safely carry it. The removal of those two requirements for the purchase of a firearm will certainly lead to harm to many, violating the Harm to Others Principle.
ReplyDelete