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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you in a sense that the governement should play a role in the handgun issue. I believe that a person should not just be able to carry a gun because their could be more killings if a person walks around with a loaded gun. The part that I do not agree is with the government having an interference with drugs. I feel taht if drugs were legalized then their would be less crime. Their will be more people with addictions but the crime would go down because it is know legal and people will not kill others or steal to get it anymore. Also the price and demand for it would go down and the drug dealers wouldnt make much profit.
ReplyDeleteI do see your point that this is taking away peoples economic freedom just like the cuban cigars, but sometimes the government should step in because guns kill people and if anyone could buy them, the world would be in a chaos. I know Friedman believes that the government should act as an umpire and not take away peoples right to buy whatever they want, but sometimes it is fair because they are doing it in the best issue of the civilians. Imagine what would happen if anyone could buy a gun, the crime rate is already high, but with this law, the crime rate would be so high, they would not have enough people to stop the violence. I know Friedman wants us to have economic freedom and that people are stopping us from reaching it, but they are just helping us keep people in order and keeping our cities safe.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your view going against Friedman. I think it would be ridiculous for citizens to be allowed to carry around guns. Not only would it bring harm to society but be a terrible influence on younger generations. I don't think any of our freedom is being taken away by not being allowed to carry around guns. Although Friedman might go against this claim I think this is one of the things the government should be in control of, if they wernt like you said our society would be chaos.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that government should step in and control the market of guns other than just be an umpire according to Friedman. Gun is a special thing that should be controlled in a special way. If government do nothing as to achieve economy freedom, it may do harm to our society even everyone’s safety. In the word, guns should not be carried and bought freely. And also, “one man’s freedom must be limited to preserve another’s”. So, if one’s freedom can injury others’, it must be forbade.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said. I think it would certainly create chaos amongst the people because they have hand guns. Some people wouldn't know how to use one properly so they could injure themselves and other people. There is no political freedom in this because its a simple question and answer. I think nobody should be able to carry a gun without a valid id.
ReplyDelete