Dialogues on Gun Violence: The Role of Social Work Values and Principles

by Allan Barsky, JD, MSW, Ph.D.

     Incidents of mass shootings in the United States have occurred with alarming frequency in recent years. On October 28, 2018, 11 congregants were murdered by a single shooter at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. On February 14, 2018, 17 students and teachers were murdered at a high school in Parkland, Florida. On October 1, 2017, 58 people were murdered at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas. On June 12, 2016, 49 people were murdered at a gay nightclub in Orlando.     

    In addition to incidents that have received substantial media attention, there have been many other shootings that have not garnered much reporting. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified 38,658 gun-related deaths in 2017, including suicides, murders, and unintentional killings (see https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm).

    In response to concerns about gun violence, various politicians, researchers, advocacy groups, and individuals have offered different solutions: banning certain types of guns; banning all guns; encouraging more law-abiding citizens to carry guns; arming teachers; controlling access to school properties, synagogues, and other locations where shootings have taken place; increasing the numbers of police and security personnel; hiring more social workers and mental health professionals to help address the underlying causes of gun violence and to help identify people at risk of committing gun violence; fostering more supportive families, schools, and communities; and having more stringent background checks before allowing people to purchase guns.

    In contrast to the demands of some to place tighter control on gun sales and possession, many gun rights advocates suggest that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms and that this right should not be abridged by gun control laws.

So, what do social work values and ethics say about this debate?

    The NASW Code of Ethics (2018) does not specifically mention guns or gun control. However, the Code includes certain principles and standards that provide some guidance on how to manage these issues. Standard 1.07(c), for instance, suggests that social workers may need to breach client confidentiality to protect the client or others from serious, imminent harm. This standard implies that protection of life may be a higher ethical principle than protection of confidentiality. Some social work ethicists suggest that protection of life is the highest ethical principle, higher than protecting confidentiality, higher than quality of life, and higher than autonomy of the person (Dolgoff, Loewenberg, & Harrington, 2012).

    According to this view, restricting gun ownership and possession (limiting autonomy) could be justified if it means that lives will be saved as a result. However, not all social work practitioners and ethicists believe that life is always the highest principle. Some say that there may be situations when autonomy or other principles may be prioritized (Barsky, 2019; Reamer, 2018).

    The preamble to the Code of Ethics suggests that social workers should pay particular attention to the needs of people who are vulnerable. Arguably, potential victims of gun violence are vulnerable and should be the focus of social work advocates. Once again, this could mean restrictions on gun sales and possession are justified. Advocates of unfettered gun rights, however, could argue (as noted earlier) that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens provide more protection of vulnerable people than restricting or prohibiting guns.

    At this point, you may feel frustrated with the “on the one hand... on the other hand” approach to the present analysis. What is the point? Why isn’t Dr. Barsky taking a side and defending it, or at least analyzing the veracity of the arguments presented?

Strategies for Engaging People in Challenging Discussions

    One of the first strategies for engaging others in discussions of controversial ethical issues is to show that you understand the arguments of each of the participants and stakeholders. If this were an actual conversation, we would need to go into more depth on each argument. Also, we would encourage each participant to demonstrate empathy and respect to the others—whether or not each participant agreed with the others. After all, our Code of Ethics says that two of our highest values are human relationships and respect for the dignity and worth of all people. Respectful conversations build positive human relationships. It is very difficult for people to work together and solve problems if people are ignoring or disrespecting one another.

    So, as you think about the issues of gun violence, reflect on your own beliefs and values. How do they inform your judgment about the policies and practices that we as a society should implement? Also, think about people whose views on this issue differ from yours. What is the nature of their values, beliefs, and concerns? What are the challenges in demonstrating respect and working with people whose views differ from your own? How can you address these challenges?

    One way to connect and build trust with others is to identify common ground. For instance, people on various sides of the issue can likely agree that preventing gun violence and preserving life is a good thing. We may not agree on the best approach to dealing with this issue, but at least we can agree on one of the goals. We might also find agreement to the principle of autonomy. Autonomy suggests that people should be free from coercion or control by others. In addition to identifying common ground, we can acknowledge differences—for instance, differences in how people define and prioritize preservation of life and freedom from coercion. Although we should identify differences, we should not overstate or fixate on them. In other words, we can build on our commonalities, validate our differences, and look for bridges as we strive to resolve the issues of gun violence.

    A third ethical principle that we can use to guide our deliberations is integrity. Integrity means being honest and trustworthy. As we engage in discussions about how to prevent gun violence, we need to focus on facts. What do we know about the causes of gun violence? What does current and valid research say about how to prevent specific types of gun violence?

    The most effective prevention strategies are likely to differ depending on which aspects of gun violence we are focusing upon—for instance, teen suicide, shootings by people experiencing hallucinations, terrorist attacks, and accidental gun shootings. We can explore which types of prevention strategies have been effective or ineffective, and then build on this knowledge base. We can also pilot test particular strategies to determine their effectiveness.

    We should avoid using arguments that violate the principles of honesty and trustworthiness. Personal attacks, fabricated statistics, inflammatory rhetoric, and misrepresented research violate the principle of integrity. They also make working together and solving gun violence issues much more difficult.

    Given many people’s strong convictions and feelings about gun violence, engaging others on the basis of integrity, respect, and human relationships can be very challenging. Still, as social workers, we need to hold ourselves to these principles even when others do not. As former First Lady Michelle Obama has said, “When [others] go low, we go high.” By holding ourselves to these ethical principles, we model ethical approaches and we foster a culture that promotes these values.

    Finally, as social workers, we should consider the principle of competence. As professionals, we have certain types of knowledge and experience that can contribute to the dialogues on gun violence. When someone vilifies people with mental illness as the primary source of gun violence, for instance, we can inform them about the nature of mental illness and the need to treat all people with respect and support. We know that many people with mental illness are not at high risk of committing gun violence. We should speak up when people disparage those with mental illness, allaying myths and misplaced fears.

Conclusion

    People who commit gun violence do so within a social context. We can help others understand the role that families, teachers, communities, and social policy play in either raising or lowering the risks of a certain person committing gun violence. We can teach people not to fear those with mental illness or other problems, but to reach out and offer support. We can also contribute to the use of social workers and allied mental health professionals to develop evidence-based strategies to identify people at risk and to implement strategies to reduce the risks of suicide, homicide, and accidental death. And as we strive for our own competence, we need to be open to the findings of current and emerging research.

    Social work is a values-based profession, meaning that our efforts to help individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities are guided by our values. As we engage with others–in person, online, or in any venue–we should approach our conversations on gun violence with the values of integrity, respect, human relationships, and competence as our inspiration.

    We do not need more hate, division, blaming, or derision. Preventing gun violence is an act of goodness, kindness, strength, and love.

References

Barsky, A. E. (2019). Ethics and values in social work: An integrated approach for a comprehensive curriculum (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Dolgoff, R., Harrington, D., & Loewenberg, F. M. (2012). Ethical issues for social work practice (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage.

Reamer, F. G. (2018). Social work values and ethics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Allan Barsky, Ph.D., J.D., MSW, is Professor of Social Work at Florida Atlantic University and author of  Social Work Values and Ethics (Oxford University Press).

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of any of the organizations to which the author is affiliated, or the views of  The New Social Worker magazine or White Hat Communications.