In the 2004 elections, America was faced with a tough decision: Kerry or Bush. Coming down to the wire, many of us had to choose between particular issues under each candidate’s platform that we felt confident were important. One issue, although not the main one, that helped me choose was gun control.Over the past few decades, America has seen a flip-flop, with legislation banning and legalizing the sale of semi-automatic assault rifles within U.S. borders. Millions of people nationwide stood together in either support or condemnation of the issue in both cases. Second Amendment lobbyists, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), sent the issue soaring as one of our nation’s hot issues.
Personally, I have to say that gun control is one of the most ill-conceived ideas since the invention of the pet rock, both of which have had many supporters in their time. But is it really something you want?
Gun control advocates would site crime and murder rates involving the use of guns in general, or assault rifles to be specific. In my opinion, this is quite laughable. Yes, I agree that guns may be and have been used to facilitate the bad intentions of many a criminal mind; but that is just one side of the token. Countless individuals have seen the good a sturdy double barreled shotgun can do when confronted by a home invader who happens to lack the moral fiber of those who would criminalize these weapons.
The Second Amendment allows for the creation of militias by the American people as well as for the protection of our right to bear arms. Although this was most likely in consideration of British troops running amok amongst the countryside, this does not mean it holds little to no value today. The inspiration for such an idea may have changed, but the principle of the idea still rings true. Say, for example, that your home has been chosen by certain parties as optimum for staging certain events, be they terrorist or other criminal. Would they (1) take your home and lives through your lack of defense due to the criminalization of weapons that they themselves have procured illegally; or (2) be held at bay outside your home because you have thankfully and legally armed yourself to the teeth in defense of your family? A simple quote comes to mind in consideration of the issue: “If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws shall have guns.”
Opposing the NRA on the issue are groups that would take into consideration the fact that children unwaveringly have a fascination with guns and other such weapons (too much TV?), while citing specific cases of unfortunate casualties of minors in accidents involving a family member’s firearm.
However bleak and saddening this subject is, the aim is a bit askew. It is unarguably true that guns are made for one purpose: to harm. With this in mind, is it right to blame the gun, or even the curiosity of the child with the accidents that occur? No. In fact, there exists an entire multi-million dollar market that aims at preventing such occurrences. It, therefore, lies in the hands of the owner to safely and correctly store firearms and ammunition away from those who would handle them improperly. Gun locks, safes, ammunition storage units, and many other devices have come to be with these cases in mind. Responsibility cannot be purchased with the weapon, but instead must be a pre-requisite to owning it.
Some would argue that guns allow the manifestation of violent behaviors present in sick individuals. Again, the point has been misplaced. A firearm is a tool, efficient as it may be; it is nothing without the user. If I were to build a shelf, I might use a screwdriver, but instead I will use a drill. If one has violent behaviors that he wishes to act out, he might use a firearm, but this is not the only tool available. In the medieval eras, many a person was brought down without even the slightest hint of gunpowder. Roman gladiators dispatched many a comrade with nothing but a blade or club.
The problem lies not in the tools of the trade, but in the behaviors that would misuse them. One may argue that if guns are outlawed, then it will be at least harder to dispatch another. It may be true that one cannot snipe others with a broadsword, but that ship sailed the moment black powder was invented. A society cannot remove technology and the information that allows it from an entire race; even if outlawed, guns will still exist.
“Gun nut” is a term I frequently hear misused. I prefer to be known as a realist, an acknowledger of not only the society in which I exist, but also one who fully realizes the precariousness on which our peace has perched. We may well cite the Soviet Union, which established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Or China which established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1976 20 million anti-Communists, Christians, political dissidents and pro-reform groups, were also unable to defend themselves, and were rounded up and exterminated. The list goes on, citing many other such incidents. All of which amounts to more than 55 million innocent people who were slaughtered by their own governments–governments that had first rendered their citizens defenseless by restricting or confiscating their firearms. This is just one more reason not to allow strict gun control.
Finally, we come to the issue of assault rifles; firearms intended for one target, people. Indeed, this is quite an imposing weapon with grave consequences for its misuse; but I would like to remind the readers of the California bank robbery which occurred not 10 years ago. Two men, heavily armed and heavily protected by full body armor, continued an assault on the police and SWAT units for a period of hours in which they took heavy fire from the small arms of the law enforcement units. It was not until the men in blue raided a local firearms dealer and acquired heavier armaments to subdue the two attackers. Had assault rifle regulation been in place, the two assailants would still be in possession of their altered illegal fully automatic rifles, while the police would have no recourse short of further casualties and perhaps running them over with their cruisers.
In closing, I insist that all individuals act as such and make their own decisions in consideration of the topic. However, on a personal note, I would suggest to those that would support lobbyist groups that advocate gun control to save their donations for more just causes, such as improving the systems in which we may acquire these tools–disallowing, for example, unfit individuals and providing harsher background checks. My name is Mark Bullock, and this is a look into my world.