Elephant, 2003

May, 2023 | KLEO KUSHOVA

Recently, guns have been a topic of much discussion. Whether it be mass shootings in schools or gun debates amongst lawmakers, gun control as a whole has had a hold on the news for a really long time. Gun control and firearm regulations deal with the setting of laws and policies that check and balance the possession, manufacture, sale, and use of guns. In general, and more and more as time has gone by, the topic of gun control has also become a partisan one. In the United States, gun control is viewed as an overall negative thing by individuals who lean Republican, and viewed as an overall positive thing by those that lean Democratic. The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects and grants “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…”. For some people, this article is enough proof to justify their standings against gun control, as they believe that such, and further, gun regulations infringe on this 2nd Amendment right. Others disagree with the interpretation of the Amendment and use it as an excuse to call for more gun control. 

In 2003, Elephant, a movie directed by Gus Van Grant, was released. Elephant shows the lives of a group of high school kids the day of a school shooting. It is based in part on the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. The movie looks to tell this story in its own way while also seeking to explore causes of the shooting, something which is still discussed to this day. Additionally, it presents a lot of other different topics, too, like mental health, the role of schools and parents on teens, and bullying, all of which are topics that are often related to gun control, especially as far as mass shootings and school shootings are concerned. When discussed hand in hand, these things form the Columbine Effect. The Columbine Effect describes the legacy and the impact that this particular school shooting has had on modern school safety, policing tactics, and prevention methods. For example, there are now many organizations, like Rachel’s Challenge, that help survivors of school shootings deal with trauma or PTSD that may have been developed as a result of said shootings. This, in turn, has also given rise to mental health awareness in many forms, whether it’s awareness for survivors or for friends and families of victims. There have also been recently implemented changes in the ways that police respond to school shootings. Though it’s extremely unfortunate that people have to die in order for these discoveries to be made, they should hopefully ultimately help end gun violence and bring about further gun control. 

No matter the argument and the stance that one takes, though, the impact that guns have had on our society, especially as of late, is undeniable. In fact, the topic of gun control can even be affected by ethical theories like virtue ethics and utilitarianism. Virtue ethics, one of the oldest ethical theories, was developed by Aristotle. He defines morally good actions as ones that display virtue, hence the name “virtue ethics”. Morally good actions, therefore, are ethical, and if an action is not morally good, it is not virtuous and, as such, is unethical. As it pertains to gun control, one would be correct to assume that Aristotle would think that mass shootings or school shootings are, as a whole, unethical. Franco V. Trivigno, professor at the Department of Philosophy in the University of Oslo, published a work that ties virtue ethics and gun control together. In it, he says, “… I approach this… from the perspective of neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics, and I argue that, in short, the habit of carrying a gun carries the risk of harm to one’s character.” (Trivigno 289). He clearly argues that, for one, carrying guns would not be virtuous. The thinking behind this could be as follows: a morally ethical action is one that displays virtue, such as courage or wisdom. Going into a school and shooting children, be it for whatever reason (though it’s hard to find one that is justified), is not courageous or wise. Therefore, doing it would break a virtue of virtue ethics, making a mass or a school shooting not virtuous and, so, unethical and morally wrong. In this case, something that, according to virtue ethics, would be ethical is gun control. Gun control will help prevent the above situations from happenings. If more gun control was implemented, the people helping to enact them would be virtuous. Gun control as an idea would also then be virtuous because it is helping prevent non-virtuous things from happening, while also, in a way, bringing happiness to people. 

Speaking of bringing happiness to people, proponents of an ethical theory called utilitarianism would agree that gun control is ethical. Utilitarianism describes things being moral if they maximize the amount of happiness and well-being that is being brought upon the greatest amount of people. Modern utilitarianism began with English philosopher Jeremy Bentham. In his book Utilitarianism, English philosopher John Stuart Mill takes Bentham’s teachings and explains them. Mill states: 

"What Utilitarianism Is […] The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure." 

To put it simply, under the views of utilitarianism, gun control will produce happiness. The more regulations there are, the harder it will be for people to use guns for heinous acts. Because of this, less people will die in mass shootings and school shootings because there will be less mass shootings and school shootings. Ideally, this will cause families to continue living happily with each other, instead of causing family and friends to grieve over their dead children, which clearly would cause, what Mill calls, the “privation” of happiness. To conclude, gun control perfectly ties into virtue ethics and utilitarianism in two ways. One, gun control itself is both virtuous and would cause the most amount of happiness for the most amount of people. Two, the opposite of gun control is not virtuous and does not cause the greatest happiness among the greatest number of people.