The problem and hence the debate of gun control is that people on opposing sides have quite different understanding of the word “Good" versus "Evil”. I am going to refer to the two polarized opposite sides as conservatives and liberals, conservatives as pro-gun advocates versus liberals to be the anti-gun group.
Conservatives believe that “Good people must have guns so that evil is held back”, while liberals think that “people must reject guns, because guns are evil and only evil people want them”. The conservatives hold to the view that “if guns are outlawed, then evil will prevail”; while liberals believe that “if guns are outlawed then we will all be safe, thus good will win”. The former believes that “evil people will continue to use guns illegally despite all efforts to get rid of them”, the latter believes that “removing guns will cause society to become more civil, therefore good”
So there lies the problem, both sides can't agree because they view guns very differently. One side looks at guns as amoral (neither good nor evil), and the other side as evil. There is no common ground from these common words.
My own personal experience lends me to believe this. I am the only gun-loving conservative on my side of the family (my wife's father-in-law loves guns and was a WWII Veteran and an awesome hunter), and on one family gathering, I happened to tell my liberal kin that I owned guns and I enjoyed hunting. The room got very quiet. Then my uncle looked at me and asked "You own a gun?". To which I replied "Yes.. guns, I own several". No one wanted to say anything after that. I only got stares, but not wanting to lose an opportunity for lively debate, I waded into the murky waters of liberal thinking and asked "Did I say something wrong?".
The dorsal fins appeared all around me as they began their decries: "Don't you know guns are bad?", and "I can't believe you hunt", and "why do you need something so dangerous anyway?", and the questions kept coming.
Being a pro gunner, it was not difficult to acknowledge that this was a worthy fight. I began to "fire back" against all their arguments. I asked them "if a mad man were to crash our party, would you like me to have a gun to stop him?" to which the reply came "That is why we have the police.." to which I countered "Which is faster, a bullet dispatched at you from a madman, or the police arriving on time to stop the shot?".. there was silence for a brief moment...but then absurd anti-gun protesting resumed. Clearly logic wasn't winning that day.
But this experience was a valuable one. It left me thinking and asking myself "why do they think this way?". These are my kin and really good people but so am I. However, my gun ownership dropped me a few brownie points in their perception of me. It occurred to me that they believed guns were bad (or evil) and because I owned them, then I must be by definition also evil. But they knew me well enough to know that I wasn't evil, and thus were confused by their own belief system. Wow.
So we need to ask some basic questions:
1. Are guns evil or are they good?
2. Does the availability of guns increase or decrease evil?
3. Is the second amendment obsolete?
Guns are as much evil or good as fire is. Fire in a campfire is good, uncontrolled forest fire is bad. So the application determines the intent and therefore defines the morality (good purposes such as personal protection and the protection of the innocent, or evil purposes such as robbery, murder etc). "Evil" by definition tends to dominate, tries to control, and eventually destroys. It's goal leads to bondage or enslavement, but "Good" by definition promotes unity, self governance, and freedom. If guns were removed, then "Good" has no chance to push back "Evil" and society will loose.
But with the recent news on all the shootings, it is fair to ask why are there more gun related crimes? There is no doubt that guns can facilitate mass killing, therefore it is logical to accept the need for modest and sensible regulations. But what are these sensible regulations?
Accidental discharges are a big concern, and the apathetic approach to guns should be renounced. But then again I ask the question - what are sensible regulations? To answer this question, we must ask another one: guns are neither good nor evil, then what is it?
It is a tool. And sensible regulations should be implemented in the area of required training and education on the correct use of this tool, not in the access of it. I am glad to see good people having firearms, but it angers me greatly when I see careless use of it at the gun range! You can't drink beer while driving, and neither should you while shooting. There are laws against these. But we don't need laws restricting us from the access of guns.
We cannot go back to a "land before time" day where the knowledge of guns and it's technology is absent. This technology is here to stay, so removing it completely is totally impractical and will never work. Therefore guns will always be around. No law can completely remove all of it now. Therefore gun control laws will remove it from the hands of the the law abiding ("Good"), but not from the law breakers ("Evil"). Gun control laws only hurt the law abiding citizens. It removes the tool from the hands of good people. Secondly, a law that removes guns from the law abiding citizens is a law that is has it's roots in a double standard. The military will need guns, otherwise why have the military? Since "We the Government" derives it's power from "We the People", why is it right for them to have guns while the citizenry is denied of it? This is how most countries operate. The citizens are subjects. The greatness about American is the constitution. It gives power to people to ELECT representatives to govern the country.
There are exceptions. Weapons of mass destruction is one such exception. Clearly national security demands us to have weapons to counter foreign threats. We the people have given our government the right to own and use certain technologies (such as long range missiles, tanks, fighter jets etc etc) and it would be silly to suggest that each of us must also have the right to such devices even if some of us private and wealthy citizens could afford them. So reasonable laws are always easy to pass because reasonable people can understand the need for them. It is when oppressiveness replaces reason, the unrest of the citizenry starts.
2. Does the availability of guns increase or decrease evil?
Are guns a catalyst to crimes? or a better question to ask is whether the removal of guns will reduce crime? To some extend, I will say "yes". But the removal of guns should be directed to the criminal elements of society. If you are a convicted felon, you loose your right to a gun. If you are on certain medication, you need to get evaluated and temporarily give up your gun. The problem is with the enforcement of the justice system. But more gun laws restricting the citizenry will not do this. Since it has become impractical to remove all the guns from the hands of the criminals, then the only way to REDUCE gun crimes, is that make it easier for good people to have them. This will act as a deterrent to those who want to perpetrate gun crimes because they know they will be stopped.
Let's take the example of two banks. For our example, we will use two fictitious names, let's call the first bank as the National Bank, and the second bank the American Bank. The policy at the National Bank is that they do not allow any guns into their bank. Their policy requires you to keep your gun in the car when you come in to bank with them. But the policy of the American Bank is exactly opposite; you can't bank at this bank unless you bring your gun with you. The staff at the American bank are also required to carry a firearm on their persons. But the National Bank has forbidden their staff as well from bringing in any guns on it's premises. Now which bank will be more susceptible to a robbery? Or a better question to ask is which bank will the robber be more successful at? Which bank will you be safer at, the National Bank or the American Bank? Remove your bias, and try to answer this question as logically as you can.
Let take another angle. Let's think about why liberals feel nervous about guns. The media has done a masterful job in demonizing guns. They repeatly and consistently say "gunman" or "gunmen" and not "criminal" or "criminals" when gun crimes are reported. The focus and attention is on the gun being the reason the crime was commited and not the wickedness of the human heart. Suppose you find yourself in a room filled with people carrying guns versus in a room that no one has a gun - why would the latter make you feel safe? There are no guns in prison, yet prisoners are able to kill each other inside prison walls - how? Criminals will find a way to inflict harm on themselves or others if given the chance. Gun laws only make the criminal stronger!
3. Is the second amendment obsolete?
If the USA becomes obsolete, then the second amendment is also obsolete, otherwise no.
In conclusion, conservatives believe that guns are a tool that the founding fathers guaranteed each American for pleasure and protection, however; liberals believe that Constitution should be modified to reflect progressive thinking and one progressive thought is that guns are barbaric and inherently evil.
The real problem as to why there is an increase in gun violent crimes is the lack of self-governance. Self-governance derives it's power from morality and morality from God.
No comments:
Post a Comment