Note: I have chosen to try and keep my own views/perspective/what side I’m on, for a later blog. As I write these blogs I will try to maintain neutral as much as possible until I disclose where I stand. Please keep in mind the difference between gun control and a gun ban. I will try my best to keep both separate, as I will focus on gun control only.
Many on both sides of this debate have agreed that the 2nd Amendment can be understood only in proper historical context and each has important claims about the text. Many crucial questions are raised by the text of the 2nd Amendment: Who is the Militia? Is Militia, in the context of time, is different from then to now. Does "the people" to the entire body of citizens, whether members of the militia or not? Is the right to "keep and bear" arms unique to the military? We need to understand what is meant when we say that guns cause harm. Guns kill because other individuals use them to kill people or, through negligence, abuse the power and kill others. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has said it best in that "guns don't kill people, people do." On the contrary, though they state to be neutral on the topic, the American Civil Liberties Union is referred to as the "states' right" view. They have long stated that the 2nd Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right to bear arms.[1]
One can argue that murder is the act of an individual, and guns are not people. But that argument can be found somewhat irrelevant. It is true that guns are objects and objects do no evil. However, not all objects are ever created equal. Well, hypothetically speaking, what if one day someone claimed that "nuclear bombs don't kill people, people do," or “napalm doesn’t kill people, people do.” Although in one sense these claims would be true, in a more critical perspective, it would be ridiculous. Obviously guns are not Weapons of Mass Destruction because they are not as dangerous, which can mean that some guns have legitimate use. But where do guns fall along the danger spectrum of, if there was one, WMD and missiles to spoons and pencils? So then we must think about what has been purposefully made to cause harm to that causes harm but was not intended to. For example, guns and WMD were created to defend and inflict harm on others or objects and we can agree on that. However, though pencils for example, weren’t created to cause harm, one can still poke another person’s eye out, inflicting harm. Another example would be of cigarettes, which were not intended to cause harm but would eventually kill people from lung cancer.
Firearms, unlike pencils, are naturally dangerous. Guns were invented and designed to cause harm. New guns are redesigned making it easier to assemble, clean, accurate, powerful, all to inflict more damage. Though cars can hurt innocent bystanders, cars are being made safer for the driver, opposite to that of the goal for weapons. Just knowing that guns are inherently dangerous, we as a society need to create control so that these dangerous objects do not get on the wrongs hands. Under these factors we should regulate weapons. We must show how risky firearms are before we can abolish or restrict them. Also, we must determine whether or not, if any, there are benefits to where they should be permitted, even if they are risky.
The more widely available firearms are, the more that people will be murdered, will die from accidents, or commit suicide. Gun supporters state that by having guns more available to the public, criminals will think twice before committing a crime.[2] They say that would be robbers would be less likely to commit the crime if they knew that the person they were about to rob possibly had a gun as well. It has also been suggested that burglars would be less likely to continue with the burglary in fear that the home owner was waiting for them with a gun. Furthermore, arming every single citizen in this nation will not effectively end crime.
[1] Web Page: American Civil Liberties Union (2008). "Second Amendment: Gun Control'" http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment
[2] Web Page: “The Gun Control Debate: Crime and Firearm Use Today.” (1997) http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/pub/eres/GSR716A_KUECHLER/linda-r.htm
I like how you use the pencil example because the pencil was created so a person can write. But if a person really wants to they can use the pencil to inflict pain on someone. Just as the same with guns depending on the person holding the gun he or she can hurt someone.
ReplyDeleteI understand that this may not be your personal view, but I have to say that I disagree with some of your points. Yes, guns are certainly capable of being used to inflict serious harm, but the fact of the matter is that this country was founded on gun ownership and it will continue to be based on such a thing.
ReplyDeleteWe are unique in that, and our responses to that unique situation need to be less than ordinary. Simply banning guns is absolutely ridiculous. The criminals don't follow the relatively simple gun laws we have today so why would they follow laws that are even more stringent and complicated? Regulation is key, but it must be fair and sensible.
Criminals in this country will always have guns so the law-abiding citizens of this country must be able to arm themselves to protect against them. It seems like everyone is against concealed carry of firearms until the day they are robbed, raped or worse and realize they are defenseless.
Your post was well written and I look forward to reading and discussing your future topics.
While the debate about whether guns or people kill people will no doubt continue, I think the real answer is both. Guns were made to inflict damage and kill. And people use guns as well as their own hands to kill people. No matter what is available, they will find a way if killing is their goal. If we ban guns or make them next to impossible to get, we will only being doing ourselves a disservice. Criminals will always get firearms one way or another and leaving citizens without guns, and therefore without a way to protect themselves, is reckless in my opinion. I think we need to focus more on the causes of crime itself rather than the objects used to commit it.
ReplyDelete