This letter to the editor presents a philosophical and theological argument against gun control legislation. Drawing on the concept of human dignity — rooted in the belief that each person is created in the image of God — the author examines both sides of the debate before arguing that gun control ultimately violates individual freedom of will and the natural right to self-defense. Citing natural law theory and the principle of self-preservation, the letter contends that restricting access to firearms infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens without preventing criminal violence. The author concludes that a culture of respect for human life and God-given freedoms, rather than restrictive legislation, is the proper remedy for societal violence.
Dear Editor,
I am writing to express my views on the current debate surrounding gun control. As someone who has devoted my life to the study of philosophy and theology, I believe that there are certain principles that must be taken into account in any discussion of this topic.
First and foremost, we must consider the dignity of the human person. Every human being is created in the image and likeness of God, and therefore possesses an inherent value and dignity.1 This dignity must be respected at all times, even in the midst of violence.
How does human dignity bear on the issue of gun control, you might ask? Every human being possesses a unique and irreplaceable value that must be respected. This value stems from the fact that each human being is created in the image of God and therefore has the capacity to reason and choose freely. Because human beings possess this unique value, they must be treated with respect and their lives must be protected. Life is sacred because it comes from God, and God resides in every living soul that has not deliberately rejected Him.
It would seem, therefore, that because human life is sacred, certain measures ought to be taken to ensure its safety. Thus, one might say that the issue of gun control bears directly on the question of human dignity. After all, the availability of guns makes it all too easy for people to take the lives of others without due consideration for their inherent value. Consequently, gun control would appear to be an important way of safeguarding human dignity and ensuring that people are treated with the respect that they deserve. By restricting the availability of guns, the state provides better protection for people, ensuring the preservation of human life.
I respond to that argument by saying, on the contrary, that gun control laws actually violate the human dignity of the individual by infringing upon his right to choose freely in the matter of self-defense. Life is precious, as it is given by God, through God, with God — but so too is freedom of will precious. God did not design human nature so that the gifts He has given might be reduced or taken away. God respects our freedom to choose, and so too should the state. God does not deny us the opportunity to create problems for ourselves — but He does provide us with the means to turn away from such temptations and to find peace and refuge in Him. Thus, the state should respect what God also respects, and it should not endeavor to deny the human being the freedom to choose, even if it means the risk of choosing wrongly.
We humans are endowed with reason by God and, as such, we are capable of making moral choices. It is our capacity for reason that gives us our freedom of will — the ability to choose between right and wrong. This freedom of choice is a gift from God and should be respected by the state. If the state were to interfere with our freedom of choice, it would be violating our natural rights. The state should not compel us to act in a certain way, as this would interfere with our ability to make moral choices. This respect for our freedom of choice comes directly from God, and it is what allows us to live in a just society where people are free to pursue their own happiness.
"Natural law grounds right to physical and psychological self-defense"
"Self-defense justified as natural act of self-preservation"
Gun control measures would only serve to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens, while doing nothing to prevent criminals from acting violently against us — whether physically or through means of overreaching governance.
You’re 53% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.