On Sunday, The Chicago Tribune had an article on Chicago’s ban on handguns, by David G. Savage. There are two sides that are debating the pros and cons of having guns. According to Otis McDonald, from Chicago, believes that guns are necessary to protect one’s self from armed drug dealers. On the con side, the ban on handguns gives police a legal basis for confronting gang members. Anita Alvarez states that cops cannot stop and frisk a person, just because they have a bulge in their pocket. She states, if it were possible, streets would be safer. Gun-rights advocates say that the Second Amendment applies more broadly and protects a right to have a gun for self-defense (David G. Savage). Mayor Daley argues that more guns would make matters worse.
Milton Friedman believes in economic freedom. In order to achieve this, the government needs to be limited. Economic freedom means that an individual can buy whatever they want, without restrictions. For example, Americans cannot buy Cuban Cigars, because the government prohibits people from buying them. In the article, Friedman would argue that the government is restricting people from buying guns. This is limiting individuals from economic freedom to buy whatever they want. According to Friedman the government should only umpire law and order for free trade. They should not make or change the rules but enforce the rules.
I would argue against Friedman’s beliefs. If people could buy guns, it would create chaos in the city. Civilians with guns might shot an individual, just because they might suspect a person is dangerous. I understand that it would promote free economy, but at the risk of safety. In a way, the government is being an umpire, but not in the way Friedman wants. It is umpiring or enforcing safety from the guns to protect citizens, so they do not cause harm to one another.
