Hugh LaFollette

Nearly half of all privately owned firearms in the world are in American hands. The U. S. homicide rate is 6 times higher than the average of all developed countries, and more than three times higher than any individual country. Half of all homicides are committed with a firearm. Gun advocates claim that the high rate of private gun ownership does not contribute to this; some even argue that murder rates would be lower if only more people carried guns to defend themselves. Pro gun control advocates find the correlation between number of guns and gun violence an obvious one -- and that it should be the starting point for discussion about gun control. Both sides think their cases are strong, and have created a political stalemate. Can the truth of these views be evaluated rationally and dispassionately? Hugh Lafollette argues the gun control debate is more complex than advocates on either side acknowledge. It requires resolving moral and legal questions about the nature of and limitations on rights, as well as the responsibility of government to protect citizens from risk. It requires assessing claims about the right to bear arms, as well as the right to be secure from harm caused by guns. Empirical findings must be considered--about the role of guns in causing harm, the degree to which private ownership of guns can protect innocent civilians from attacks by criminals, whether the government should be constrained by a well-armed citizenry, and the degree to which laws seriously limiting access to guns can be effectively enforced. Lafollette carefully sorts through all these conceptual, moral, and empirical claims. He concludes that all things considered, the U. S. does need more gun control than we have. He then proposes an indirect strategy for decreasing harm from firearms--requiring all gun owners to have liability insurance (something the NRA actually encourages) similar to that of car owners. Lafollette argues that this approach could reduce gun violence without the problem of government intrusion. Painstakingly fair and historically informed, the book is mainly designed for use in applied ethics and public policy courses, showcasing how one might approach a difficult topic with care and even-handedness in order to construct a rational argument. In Defense of Gun Control sorts through the conceptual, moral, and empirical claims to fairly assess arguments for and against serious gun control.

Nearly half of all privately owned firearms in the world are in American hands. The U. S. homicide rate is 6 times higher than the average of all developed countries, and more than three times higher than any individual country. Half of all homicides are committed with a firearm. Gun advocates claim that the high rate of private gun ownership does not contribute to this; some even argue that murder rates would be lower if only more people carried guns to defend themselves. Pro gun control advocates find the correlation between number of guns and gun violence an obvious one -- and that it should be the starting point for discussion about gun control. Both sides think their cases are strong, and have created a political stalemate. Can the truth of these views be evaluated rationally and dispassionately? Hugh Lafollette argues the gun control debate is more complex than advocates on either side acknowledge. It requires resolving moral and legal questions about the nature of and limitations on rights, as well as the responsibility of government to protect citizens from risk. It requires assessing claims about the right to bear arms, as well as the right to be secure from harm caused by guns. Empirical findings must be considered--about the role of guns in causing harm, the degree to which private ownership of guns can protect innocent civilians from attacks by criminals, whether the government should be constrained by a well-armed citizenry, and the degree to which laws seriously limiting access to guns can be effectively enforced. Lafollette carefully sorts through all these conceptual, moral, and empirical claims. He concludes that all things considered, the U. S. does need more gun control than we have. He then proposes an indirect strategy for decreasing harm from firearms--requiring all gun owners to have liability insurance (something the NRA actually encourages) similar to that of car owners. Lafollette argues that this approach could reduce gun violence without the problem of government intrusion. Painstakingly fair and historically informed, the book is mainly designed for use in applied ethics and public policy courses, showcasing how one might approach a difficult topic with care and even-handedness in order to construct a rational argument. In Defense of Gun Control sorts through the conceptual, moral, and empirical claims to fairly assess arguments for and against serious gun control.

The Practice of Ethics is an outstanding guide to the burgeoning field of applied ethics, and offers a coherent narrative that is both theoretically and pragmatically grounded for framing practical issues. Discusses a broad range of contemporary issues such as racism, euthanasia, animal rights, and gun control. Argues that ethics must be put into practice in order to be effective. Draws upon relevant insights from history, psychology, sociology, law and biology, as well as philosophy. An excellent companion to LaFollette's authoritative anthology, Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, Third Edition (Blackwell, 2006).

The Practice of Ethics is an outstanding guide to the burgeoning field of applied ethics, and offers a coherent narrative that is both theoretically and pragmatically grounded for framing practical issues. Discusses a broad range of contemporary issues such as racism, euthanasia, animal rights, and gun control. Argues that ethics must be put into practice in order to be effective. Draws upon relevant insights from history, psychology, sociology, law and biology, as well as philosophy. An excellent companion to LaFollette's authoritative anthology, Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, Third Edition (Blackwell, 2006).

First published in 1997. Aren't humans more valuable than animals? Isn't it morally appropriate to sacrifice animals to cure human disease? Questions about the scientific and moral status of biomedical experimentation are hotly debated in the media and in professional circles. The outcome of this debate will shape future public health policy. Lafollette and Shanks expose the weaknesses in both the standard defense and standard criticisms of animal experimentation. This thorough investigation of one of today's most fiercely debated questions yields some unexpected conclusions. Brute Science essential reading for anyone involved, directly or indirectly in animal experimentation.

This volume is a philosophical introduction and exploration of the nature and value of personal relationships. It is an ideal text for introductory philosophy, ethics, or applied ethics courses.