Moral and Ethical Implications of Gun Ownership

Have Gun, Will Travel . . . to Work

Do you have a moral, not only a legal, right to own a gun? Assume that either the Second Amendment or state law gives you a legal right to keep a gun in your car when you drive. Do you also have a moral right to do this? Do you have either a moral or a legal right to park a car with a loaded gun in a privately owned public parking lot regard-less of what the lot’s owner wants?

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

I as a citizen am of the opinion that I do have a moral right to own a gun. I earn a right to protect myself from any danger or threat, legally. Therefore It is morally acceptable too if somebody wants to own a gun without hurting the innocent. When the state law allows a person legally to keep the gun, it is morally correct to have the gun in the car or anywhere else until and unless the owner of the place does not have any problem with it. But in conditions where the owner of the parking-lot doesn’t support the decision, it is legally and morally incorrect to practice your own will in somebody else’s property.

. In your view, do employees have either a moral or a legal right to park cars with guns in them in the company parking lot? If so, what about the property rights and safety concerns of employers? If employees don’t have this right, would it be good policy for companies to allow them to stow guns in their cars anyway? Do companies have good grounds for being concerned about weapons in their parking lots?

In my opinion, employees have the moral and legal right to park cars with guns in the company parking lot if the company allows. If the company I concerned about the property rights and safety issues of the employers and stops the employees to stow the guns in the cars, it is legally incorrect and the employees would be charged of practicing illegal acts without the consent of the owner. Companies have grounds for being concerned about the issues as any kind of mishap can take place in the parking area if the place would be loaded with guns and therefore the company would be held responsible for the issue. In order to avoid that, companies have all the right to stop the employees from stowing guns without their permission.

3. Do you agree with the NRA that if companies ban guns from their parking lots, this restriction would take “a wrecking ball to the Second Amendment” or nullify the right of people to have weapons for self- defense? Explain why or why not. In your view, have gun advocates been guilty of politicizing this issue? Do you think state legislatures are right to get involved, or should the matter be left to companies and employees to settle?

I agree with NRA that if the companies ban guns from their parking lots, this would nullify the right of the people to have weapons for self-defense, because even though the second Amendment allows the use of guns foe the self-defense, it does not allow to practice something without permission of the owner on a private property. Therefore In my view, the gun advocates should have been guilty because there is no second thought about it. If the owner does not allow the guns, they cannot be forced. Rules are defined by the owner of the property. State legislatures should not get involved in the matter as the legislature allows the keeping of guns and also to abide the rules of the owner. Therefore it is a matter of the employee and the companies to handle the issue.

Because the workplace is the company’s private property, the company could choose, if it wished, to allow employ-ees to bring guns not only into the parking lot but also into the workplace itself. Are there ever circumstances in which doing so might be reasonable? Or would the presence of guns automatically violate the rights of other employees to be guaranteed a safe working environment?

If the company does not allow the employees to bring guns into the parking lot, there is no condition that it might be reasonable to bring in the guns until and unless the company allows the particular employee or all the employees to stow in their guns on a given day. Otherwise it will be against the law and would be illegal. It would violate the laws and the rights of the other employees. Rule defined by the companies is that do not put guns in the cars, then keeping them would be considered a violation of the rule.

What would a libertarian say about this issue? What considerations would a utilitarian have to take into account? What conclusion might he or she draw?

The libertarian would be against the ban on having guns in the cars of the parking lots of the companies as their basic concern would be the employee’s right to keep whatever the state has allowed him to. He will be of the opinion that the employees can keep anything they want to keep themselves safe from any sort of danger on their way from home and office. They have a right to protect themselves on their own. He would conclude that the companies are irrational in putting such demands and they are being self-centered by not giving a thought to the employee’s security. The state should be involved in the matter as if the state allows the legal right to keep the guns, the companies should not prohibit it.

If you were on a company’s board of directors, what policy would you recommend regarding handguns, rifles, or other weapons in employees’ cars? In making your recommendation, what factors would you take into account? Would it make a difference how large the company was, the nature of its workforce, or where it was located? If you support banning firearms from the parking lot, what steps, if any, do you think the company should take to enforce that policy?

If I were on the company’s board of directors, I would make a policy to partially ban the stowing of guns and rifles in the cars. I would suggest to make a safe place where every day my employees who wish to keep their guns with them can deposit them and can claim those on their way back to home. Keeping the guns in the parking lot is not safe, therefore they can be kept in a well-guarded place. This would please the employees that their issues are taken care of and thus wont effect the company’s policies as well. The nature of workforce and the location would not make a difference as the policies are same everywhere.

Explain whether (and why) you agree or disagree with the following argument: “ If employees have a right to keep guns in the parking lot, then they also have a right to bring them into workplace. After all, we’re only talking about licensed, responsible owners, and the same rationale applies: An employee might need a weapon for self- protection. What if a lunatic starts shooting up the company?” No I do not agree with the argument mentioned above as that is totally based on the owners will that what does he/she permits its employee’s and to what extent. If the company allows the employee’s to bring in the guns in the parking lot and does not allow the guns in the company, the employees cannot practice that. No body earns a right to practice something on other’s property without the permission of the owner. The safety concerns of the company are justified and I support the decision of the company. It is the responsibility of the company to take care of its employees.

Union Discrimination:

Assuming the Foundation’s description of the case is accurate, was Paul Robertson treated unfairly? Was this a case of discrimination? If Robertson was an “at- will” employee, does he have any legitimate grounds for complaint?

Considering the given issue and assuming that the description is accurate, I am of the opinion that yes Paul Robertson was treated unfairly. No state rules that if the employee does not join a union or pay union dues, he or she cannot work. It is the basic human right that he can work without any external policies. It is up to the employee if he/she wants to get associated with a union or not. Companies cannot force or make a deal with the union that they will hire only employees that will deal with union. It was a strong case of discrimination as Paul Robertson was deprived of his basic rights without any legal reason. If Robertson was an “at-will” employees he might not have any legitimate grounds for the complaint as he won’t be treated differently and unjustly and would to be able to complain.

Does it make a difference to your assessment of the case whether someone like Robertson knows, when he accepts a job, that he must join the union or that non- union employees will be the first to be laid off?

No, this might not make any difference to my assessment as any company cannot put such allegations on the employees. It is on the free will of the employees that they could join or do not join the union. The employees are hired on the basis of their skills and aptitude regardless of the fact that they will join the union or not. This an extreme case of discrimination as the future employees are judged on the basis of their willingness to join the union or not despite of their skills and hard work. My assessment that this is a case of discrimination would remain intact even in the given scenario.

If union employees negotiate a contract with management, part of which specifies that management will not hire non- union employees, does this violate anyone’s rights? Would a libertarian agree that the resulting union shop was perfectly acceptable?

Libertarian would never agree on this company and union setup. Every person should be hired for a job he is eligible of and fills in the criteria. Keeping such restrictions would be a biased decision and the violation of human rights. Every person has the freedom to choose what they want. This is not an acceptable scenario. A person should be rejected from a job if he doesn’t have the skills to fulfill the job not on the basis of tagging them as union or non-union employees.

Presumably Paul Robertson could have joined the union, but he chose not to. What principle, if any, do you think he was fighting for? Assess the union charge that people like Paul Robertson are “free riders” who want the benefits and wages that unionization has brought but try to avoid paying the dues that make those benefits and wages possible.

Paul Robertson could have joined the union but he did not because he was fighting against the discrimination policy that the company had utilized. His basic fight was for the rights that he possess even if he does not join the union. The Union’s charge of Paul Robertson as a “free rider” is inacceptable ad vague. The wages and the benefits that employees like Paul Robertson enjoy are the benefits they get because of their hard work and their job. They do not need to be associated with any union to get tat. Those are the benefits they earn it through hard work.

What do you see as the likely motivations of Bechtel Power and the union? How would they justify their conduct?

The Bechtel Power and the union wished to hire the employees that would join the union and pay the union in order to earn money and increase the union employees. They would justify their conduct that they offered Paul Robertson to join the union if the employee cannot meet the demands of the organization, the company bears the right to fire him/her. The company would justify by implying that meeting the criteria of the company is the basic need of the company and Paul or employees who do not join the union are not meeting the criteria so it is not a discrimination case if they do not hire such individuals.

Why did the Foundation run this ad? Is the ad anti- union propaganda? Do you think the Foundation is sincerely interested in the rights of individual workers? Or is it simply interested in weakening unions vis- à- vis management?

In my opinion, the foundation run this ad to help the people and to aware those individuals that actions are taken against the discrimination. It is not an anti- union propaganda but an effort to help the individual workers who are deprived of their basic rights. The foundation is boosting the people to speak up for their rights and building a trust that they are there to help them in such circumstances and they should fight for their basic rights. The aim of the ad is not to target the union or to propagate against the union. It was to highlight the issues of the individuals.

Assess union shops from the moral point of view. What ­conflicting rights, interests, and ideals are at stake? What are the positive and negative consequences of permitting union shops?

Morally, the union shops are incorrect. The rights of individuals are at stake. The right to work without any restriction is sacrifices. Even form the company’s point of view it might lose hardworking individuals because they might not be willing to join the unions. The company could be at stake too with such restrictions. The positives of permitting union shops is that the company could bloom with the employees paying the union charges but keeping in account the negatives, it might lose skilled employees and only those will be hired that would be willing to accept the union and pay charges.