The right to bear arms

I completely agree with the Supreme Court's decision that the Second Amendment protects individuals' rights to bear arms. In the weeks after the decision, I have read some pretty stupid arguments against the ruling. Some people seem to assume that the right to own a gun is the same as the right to shoot whoever you want with that gun. In an editorial for the Boston Herald, author Mitch Albom writes:

"It means people shooting first and asking questions later. It means domestic arguments now resolved with pistols. It means thousands more guns out there, which means thousands more guns stolen and used for the wrong reasons. It means 4-year-olds finding Daddy’s gun. It means teenagers, angry and misguided, grabbing guns from their parents’ closets. It means workplace violence. It means suicides."

No, it doesn't. The Supreme Court's decision simply means that (basically) anyone who wants can own a gun. It does not mean that people can shoot others without asking questions or commit violence at work or at home. It does not mean (necessarily) that more guns will be stolen, or that kids will misuse guns. Teaching children how guns work and why they are dangerous is a much better way to keep safe than banning guns. Plus, isn't it a little ageist to call teenagers "angry and misguided"? I'm sure some adults are "angry and misguided" and that some teens are calm and have good judgement.

In a Boston Globe article, Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago was quoted as saying,

"If they think that's the answer, then they're greatly mistaken... Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun and I have a gun, and we'll settle in the streets."

Again, the Court's ruling gives people the right to own guns. It doesn't give people the right to settle their disputes with violence. It doesn't give people the right to shoot anyone! Why would you want to do away with the court system just because people can own guns?

Additionally, the ruling is not supposed to be an "answer" to anything. I consider myself a deontologist, which means that I judge what is right and wrong based on people's duties and rights, not on the consequences of actions. It seems like the Supreme Court justices (at least the 5 in the majority) were also being deontologists when they made this ruling.

Here is how my logic goes: Owning a gun is not immoral, and it does not violate anyone else's rights. Therefore, individuals have a right to own guns, and the government has a corresponding duty to respect that right. Shooting an innocent person, on the other hand, does violate that person's rights, and that is why that, not owning a gun, is illegal. Laws should be made to protect people's rights, not to get good consequences. Banning the ownership of handguns would be wrong no matter how many good consequences it had, because it would be violating people's rights.

I have never fired a gun in my life. Yet because I am a deontologist, I wholeheartedly support the Second Amendment.