Why Gun Control is So Hard

Abstract

The issue of gun control is among a growing number of polarizing topics that may seem immune frommeaningful compromise and rational debate. Although their intransience may be exaggerated, few citizens are undecided and most have strong opinions that are disappointingly short on accurate information and nuance. Some may believe this state of affairs indicates the utter futility of attempts to grapple seriously with the controversy. On the other hand, a case can be made that clear-minded philosophical input is needed most urgently when the sides are so far apart. At least we philosophers can recommend a sensible and balanced analysis of the issue to anyone who is prepared to listen (including our captured audience of undergraduates). Hugh LaFollette’s Gun Control is an important and eminently readable contribution to the surprisingly sparse philosophical commentary about one of our country’s most pressing concerns. In this review, I will point out four distinct but related ways I believe his effort could have been even more successful. I will contend that he is unclear about his intended audience; could do more to identify the nature of the problem to be solved; spends too little time defending concrete solutions; and fails to wrestle adequately with crucial questions of enforcement. But my critical posture should not be mistaken for a negative assessment of his book. In case there is doubt, I explicitly recommend that anyone who endeavors to cut through the fog and come to terms with the issue of gun control should study LaFollette’s book.