Ethical and moral implications of gun ownership in workplaces

Running head: ETHICAL AND MORAL IMPLICATION OF GUN OWNERSHIP 1

ETHICAL AND MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF GUN OWNERSHIP 5

Have Gun, Will Travel… to Work Americans have been bestowed with a prima facie right to possess firearms. The significance of this right is regarding the self-defense value of the firearms as well as the satisfaction it provides for gun enthusiasts (Lewis & Zare, 2015). The social harms of owning a gun privately do not override this right. In most cases, these damages are hyperbolic and are probably insignificant compared to the advantages of owning a gun. This paper delves into the ethical and moral implications of gun ownership, and I maintain that prohibiting individuals from owning guns would only be permissible with clear substantiation indicating that the harms are significantly higher than the benefits. Moral and Legal Right to Own a Gun The United States Second Amendment protects all Americans’ right to owning firearms (Lewis & Zare, 2015). As such, I am of the opinion that it is my moral and legal right to own a gun. All citizens have a significant role to play in ensuring their security. Once the state allows one to own a firearm, it is only right to allow them to exercise this freedom fully by bringing the gun to every place they feel the need to reinforce their security (Lewis & Zare, 2015). However, there should always be exceptions to regulation and will ensure that everyone can peacefully coexist without cases of others infringing the counterparts’ rights. I understand employers that are uncomfortable with having customers or employees with loaded guns on their property. As such, it is morally and legally inappropriate to exercise your right while infringing on another person right. However, if the gun owner has a legal permit indicating that the gun is well registered, it would be an overreaction on the employers’ side to prevent them from access to the premises. The property owners are mostly scared of the liability, and that is their primary argument regarding not allowing guns into their property. However, several states have clauses that have detached property owners from any liability if another individual uses his firearm to cause death, injuries, or damages while on their property (Kalesan, Mobily, Keiser, Fagan, & Galea, 2016). While the clause is not entirely assuring to property owners, it a step towards getting everyone takes their responsibilities and while finding a balance between the involved parties. Moral and Legal Right to Have Loaded Guns in Company’s Parking Lots It is the responsibility of business owners to ensure that their employers and the workplaces are secure and some interpret this duty to mean no weapons within the working environment (Lewis & Zare, 2015). However, fully registered gun owners are protected by the law to carry their weapons, which presents the Gun Rights versus Property Rights quagmire. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Census regarding fatal injuries at the workplace, 4,600 cases were recorded among them 400 homicides at the workplace (Kalesan et al., 2016). It is understandable why property owner will enforce strict rules regarding having a loaded gun in the work environment. However, on the other side, some employees might feel unsafe leaving work especially at night and hence carry their guns to work for self-defense. They may not want to use the weapon in the workplace, and it would be quite unfair to be denied the right to protect themselves. Most people are just scared, but there do not understand the intricacies of gun ownership while other are stuck up with misinformed perspectives. People have been cultured to think guns are dangerous and would take every opportunity to demonize them and ignore the real problem that should be confronted (Kimberly, 2016). A person who is legally permitted to own a gun must be responsible and trivializing their security concerns and turning on them as threats are not only offensive but also irresponsible. As such, a perfect balance should be determined in the sense that gun owners who have a proof of gun registration and a copy of the permit should be allowed to carry their firearms at the workplace but must provide these copies to be filed by the company. Involvement of State Legislatures The federal and state laws protect the right to firearm ownership (Kalesan et al., 2016). However, there is a very thin line regarding whether State Legislatures have any role to play in private business owners’ activities and the possibility of then infringing on their rights. The topic has so many grey areas particularly because a section of the population believe that the Legislature has no business telling business owners what they should or should not do on their property (Kimberly, 2016). Ideally, the decision should be left to the business owners’ judgment because they understand their workforce. They are in a better position to understand who has a valid security concern and who may have a hunting adventure right after work and may need to bring their firearms along. Business owners have a better understanding of the dynamics of the company, and their judgment may be more accurate than what the Legislatures think (Kimberly, 2016). Involving them is more like relinquishing the business owner’s rights to them and may not know how best to handle the situation. If one owns a business, then they can run or ruin it. However, while focused on the business and property rights, business owners should not forget the basis of the debate because the employees’ right regarding gun ownership and the right to self-defense is protected morally and legally. When is it Reasonable for Companies to allow Guns to the property? It would be entirely superficial for me to disregard companies ever allowing firearms into the properties. I believe that depending on the circumstances presented; employees could be allowed to carry their weapons openly and freely. Some of the obvious options include gun store employees, private security guards, federal flight deck officers, and armored car drivers (Lewis & Zare, 2015).  In this group of individuals, there is no evidence indicating that they have been infringing on anyone rights the nature of their jobs notwithstanding. They have always maintained a safe working environment an indication that the debate towards gun control can end with proper education on the same (Kimberly, 2016). If the person carrying the gun has been determined to be a threat to the society, then the business owners have every right to strip them of the right to gun ownership at the workplace. Although people may come with all arguments and ideas regarding the expansion of the Second Amendment, the business owners have the power of interpreting the meaning of safe environment and providing it to their employees (Lewis & Zare, 2015).  If the company believes that allowing firearms at the workplace reinforces the security, then it should communicate to the employees its position regarding gun ownership and as well as the company’s gun policy. The Property Rights Versus Gun Rights conversations are on the rage in the United States since they primarily conflict with one another and leave numerous grey areas. While it is both morally and legally inappropriate to dictate to a person with a permit of gun ownership when to have the gun, property owners also are constitutionally protected to dictate what should be done or found on their properties. Therefore, both employees and employers have a significant role to play in ensuring that they attain a common ground regarding how far they can go to ensure a safe working environment. Employers should protect the employees’ rights to self-defense and allow them to carry their guns but only after providing proper documentation and respecting the firearms regulations as provided by the company.