Guns in the U.S. have been an issue for decades, especially in recent years. There has been much debate about whether guns should be kept within the U.S. Constitution.
It is true that guns are dangerous weapons. So much so to the point that there are a lot of pro-gun control supporters who believe the government should ban guns. On the other hand, many pro-gun supporters believe that the government should freely keep the right to bear arms. The first statement insinuates that guns should be banned because the object is a weapon capable of fatal injuries on a mass scale. However, other weapons can do much more brutal damage, not just to people, but also to the surrounding environment.
For example, earlier this month, we covered a case of a man who went on an ax-swinging rampage in a McDonald's. If a person with an ax can destroy so much in such little time, should we ban axes too? The idea that just because something can cause damage doesn't mean we have to ban it. Even if we do ban guns in places with high homicide rates, why would gun bans make the rates go down?
In cities like London or New York, the homicide rates aren't exactly low. Stabbings are a huge issue, especially in New York, where crime is not an uncommon sight. If people can carry knives around and potentially harm people, why are only guns banned? It feels mildly inconsistent with their reasoning. Although I cannot deny that guns are still dangerous and potentially fatal, that doesn't change the fact that other methods are also used in homicide.
Gun control is also supposed to limit and decrease gun violence itself. There are many examples of gun bans being enforced and gun crime generally decreasing. However, which states (as in government systems) are good comparisons to the United States? Suppose the comparison to the specific state we are picking has a different culture, population, or history compared to the U.S. In that case, it may not be precisely the best way to reflect those gun control laws in the United States.
The U.K.'s gun crime spiked after their gun ban, and Australia's gun crime was decreasing at an already equivalent rate, so it's hard to claim that their gun ban was directly causing the correlation. Likewise, it's hard to find a good comparison for the U.S.
For example, comparing Switzerland to the U.S. is not a good comparison in defending the right to bear arms. Switzerland is a small nation with a culture that heavily emphasizes safety. The U.S., however, is a very large heterogeneous nation with many different cultures and a history of those many different peoples and ideas fighting against one another.
A better comparison is a larger nation with a related culture, like the U.K. or Australia. But even those aren't good comparisons themselves. The U.K.'s gun crime spiked after their gun ban, and Australia's gun crime was decreasing at an already equivalent rate, so it's hard to claim that their gun ban was directly causing the correlation. Likewise, it's hard to find a good comparison for the U.S.
Another extreme example of this is North Korea. North Korea has rarely ever had much resistance against the government, and part of that is because the people can't really own guns.
Like I mentioned previously, it's not like these extreme cases are always the case. Many countries today have strict gun control and are generally considered very safe. That does not change the fact that almost every single tyrannical government had strict gun control laws themselves. We do not know if the U.S. would fall under tyranny due to strict gun control, so we should consider the possibility that taking away private ownership of guns in this country might do more harm than good.
Gun control might not work in this country. Yes, there are many people who agree with it, so taking away gun control might work in a small population where people don't want to own guns. However, there are almost just as many people who wish to keep guns. Taking away those people's rights to own guns will only aggravate them. Something similar to Venezuela might happen, where guns were forcibly confiscated. People could also make guns, like what happened to the late Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. How could something like that happen in a nation where guns are strictly controlled?
A better option is to educate people that most people generally own guns for self-defense, and if one were to own a gun, home defense should be a priority. It is not right to take away someone's freedom to bear arms if they wish to use it for home defense, for which most people claim to use guns. Teaching gun discipline and handing down the desire to protect oneself and one's family is one way to limit gun violence. If you had a family, wouldn't you want to protect them too? I feel that many would agree with that.
Comments