Propounded by the founding fathers of the United States of America and then later codified into the Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms has become a touchy subject as of late. The latest event to stimulate this debate were the Virginia Tech shootings. Since I personally know people on both sides of this issue, I thought I’d take a stab at it.
Of course, in the 19th century, the right to bear arms was considered in the context of defense of the state when many men were considered to be part of the militia. Indeed the right was initially included in the Bill of Rights as an inheritance of centuries old logic that dictated people bear arms for “King and Country.” Those were testing times, what with the marauding and soon-to-be-even-more-pissed British, wild bears, the French, the Native Americans and what not. Now that America is in a period of relative peace, is it still necessary to bear arms or has this part of the Bill of Rights become obsolete? Do professional standing armies and a well-equipped police force negate the founding principles of the Right to Bear Arms?
Let’s see, where should I start. Well, to a degree, I can understand the idea behind the right to bear arms. And when I say the idea behind it, I mean the basic foundation of the idea, namely, that everyone should have the ability to possess items for self defense. This, then, includes knives, clubs and sometimes deadly laser trip-wires. Even in a civilized world it may be necessary to protect yourself or your family/friends form danger. Vis a vis the Virginia Tech shootings, friends have mentioned that if someone on campus had been armed, they might have been able to injure or kill Cho and save lives if not prevent the tragedy in the first place. And I agree, this certainly could have been the case. Of course, if several students on the campus had been armed and gung-ho about taking the issue into their own hands, it could have turned into a far worse and bloody shoot-out a la the Wild West. Imagine someone had accidentally shot a baby while trying to take out the original shooter (what was a baby doing on a college campus? Give me some leeway jeez!). Think of the questions that would have been asked then.
It’s tough to speculate after the fact if armed students on campus could have prevented or lessened the severity of the Virginia Tech shootings. For me, armed students seems like a completely irrational idea. Do I want every depressed or drunken college student who is just on the verge of maturing (and therefore mentally delicate) to be armed to the teeth with BFG 2000s (for those of you that don’t get the Doom reference, the BFG was a big fucking gun, geddit)? Well, in short, no. I’d much prefer to have campus weapon-free. That said, I wonder how the social dynamic would change if everyone, and I do mean everyone, was armed. In such a hypothetical world, any argument could carry the pain of death and you could speculate that people would be more peaceful as a result. Indeed, in such a world, Cho would have either had a hell of a time planning his shooting-spree or have foregone it altogether seeing as how he’d have been shot at immediately.
Still, to me that seems like a ludicrous solution. For every tragedy prevented because people were armed, you’d have others using guns for petty disputes. I’d like to think that the populace was smart enough to show restraint, but really, most people can be right wankers… short-tempered, short-sighted and sometimes just plain short wankers. I know sometimes I can be a wanker and I’d hate to see myself drunk, pissed-off and with a .45 in my belt.
Most of my friends know how to handle guns. They actively practice at shooting ranges, follow the necessary protocol to keep things safe and always exercise their good sense when armed. Still, it doesn’t preclude mistakes happening and I can clearly remember one incident where a rifle was discharged indoors and the round went into the neighbor’s house. It could have ended horribly, fortunately, Lady Luck was present. It does set a precedent though. As far as guns are concerned, mistakes can often by fatal.
And what of other countries where gun control is active? Canada comes to mind first since it borders the US and is in many ways a sister country (although a remarkably different sister to keep the analogy going). Guns aren’t readily available in Canada and their gun-crime rate is something to be proud of. True, there are about ten people in total in all of Canada but even percentage wise, gun-crime is practically non-existent as compared with the US. The same is true in India. All firearms must be licensed and registered (and if I remember correctly, to own a handgun you have to show you need it) and as a result most people don’t have one. Our gun-crime rate is very low for our population. The same could probably be said about China.
Whenever one mentions gun control laws, the critics always retort that the criminal will get guns no matter what. And in that they are correct. Yes, the criminals will always be able to find firearms regardless of what gun control laws are in effect. But you see, that isnt’t the issue. It’s like saying that since criminals will always exist, we shouldn’t have laws. Just as there will always be bad apples in a legal system who try to subvert it, there will always be those who contravene gun control laws. The solution to this is not to abolish of prevent gun control laws. The solution is the better train and fund the necessary law enforcing agencies.
Finally, I really think that the issue of bearing firearms has become muddied with the right to freedom, the right to self-defense and to some degree with a man’s ego (and possibly a women’s ego too). The last time I fired a gun, it gave me a surreal sense of power, one far greater than what I possess without a firearm. Basically, I had the ability to alter life remotely. It’s a scarily addictive and satisfying feeling. To kill someone with a knife you have to get up and personal, touch them, feel the life drain from them. With a gun, it’s simply far to easy to kill someone and feel no remorse because you are removed from the victim. In many ways it is a god=like feeling. Furthermore, self-defense should be practiced in a pro-active sort of way. Guns are a reactive tool when it comes to self defense. You use one after a situation has gotten out of control. Examples of pro-active solutions are the usual common=sense cliches: stay away from poorly lit streets at night, have a good alarm system on your house, have multiple lines of communication, don’t piss people off, etc. Lastly, the right to keep and bear arms isn’t intrinsically linked to freedom in the same way that possessing land mines isn’t. Theoretically you could use land mines as a self-defense measure but really, it’s just an asinine idea.
In the end, people will always get shot regardless of what gun control laws are in effect (if any). That, on its own, is hardly reason to be so defensive of the right to bear arms. If you really fear for your life and safety and want to have a tool for self=defense, look into the non-lethal alternatives (tasers, cattle sticks, rubber bullets, pepper spray, etc.).
Comments?
Popularity: 11% [?]
Holy mother of fuck, you better be ready to read a novel. Come Monday, assuming I remember, I’m going to spend eight hours explaining why you’re wrong.
Milan, I would expect nothing less.
Part 1:
“Of course, in the 19th century, the right to bear arms was considered in the context of defense of the state when many men were considered to be part of the militia.”
Wrong. The right to bear arms was not for defense of the state, but rather for the defense of the individual from the state’s use of excessive powers. An armed public is the one thing that was capable of stopping a government from taking full control and becomine a dictatorship, because the public has the ability to revolt.
“Indeed the right was initially included in the Bill of RIghts as an inheritance of centuries old logic that dictated people bear arms for “King and Country.’”
No, the right was included because the English government was placing ridiculous laws on the colonials, and the only way they were able to regain their rights was by revolting. Therefore, when the colonials created the Constitution and founded the U.S. government, they wanted the people to have the ability to revolt against the government in the even it became too far-reaching. The problem is, nowadays, the government is TOO powerful, and it would be near impossible to have a standoff against the government, and so we are where we are now, with the federal government taking so much power that George Washington would be spinning in his grave. This isn’t n ew either. It primarily ballooned with FDR and the Insterstate Commerce Act.
Those were testing times, what with the marauding and soon-to-be-even-more-pissed British, wild bears, the French, the Native Americans and what not. Now that America is in a period of relative peace, is it still necessary to bear arms or has this part of the Bill of Rights become obsolete? Do professional standing armies and a well-equipped police force negate the founding principles of the Right to Bear Arms?
Once again, weapons are not for defense of the state, but defense from the state. Furthermore, what good did the well-equipped police force do at Columbine? At Virginia Tech? Not at all. It was over before they got there.
If someone breaks into your house, what good will the police do? The robber will be in and out before they arrive. You might even be dead by that point.
The job of the police is not to protect each and every citizen. It is to protect society. It is each individual citizen’s responsibility to protect himself.
Let’s see, where should I start. Well, to a degree, I can understand the idea behind the right to bear arms. And when I say the idea behind it, I mean the basic foundation of the idea, namely, that everyone should have the ability to possess items for self defense. This, then, includes knives, clubs and sometimes deadly laser trip-wires. Even in a civilized world it may be necessary to protect yourself or your family/friends form danger. Vis a vis the Virginia Tech shootings, friends have mentioned that if someone on campus had been armed, they might have been able to injure or kill Cho and save lives if not prevent the tragedy in the first place. And I agree, this certainly could have been the case. Of course, if several students on the campus had been armed and gung-ho about taking the issue into their own hands, it could have turned into a far worse and bloody shoot-out a la the Wild West. Imagine someone had accidentally shot a baby while trying to take out the original shooter (what was a baby doing on a college campus? Give me some leeway jeez!). Think of the questions that would have been asked then.
You seem to think that if weapons were allowed, everybody would have concealed weapons, and everybody would want to be the hero. This is a blatantly slippery-slope logical fallacy, and one trying to appeal to emotions rather than facts. (What if someone shot a baby? Nice.) First of all, to even be allowed a concealed weapons permit requires a concealed weapons course and medical and criminal background checks. The course, which I have taken by the way, includes not only target shooting but a rather blatant discourse on the psychological effects of shooting somebody. They go on to say that when a police officer shoots somebody, he is given time off on paid leave to recuperate, as well as a psychiatrist and couseling to help him deal with what happened. They go on to say, as a citizen, you will not receive any of this, and therefore, any recuperation will done at your own time. Furthermore, we are explicitly taught about firing into crowds, firing into/through walls, ceilings where we don’t know what’s on the other side. The course highly discourages ever using a gun, and after the course, they perform medical and criminal background checks as well.
It’s tough to speculate after the fact if armed students on campus could have prevented or lessened the severity of the Virginia Tech shootings. For me, armed students seems like a completely irrational idea. Do I want every depressed or drunken college student who is just on the verge of maturing (and therefore mentally delicate) to be armed to the teeth with BFG 2000s (for those of you that don’t get the Doom reference, the BFG was a big fucking gun, geddit)?
That’s nice. Another blatantly slippery slope argument. When you were in college and got drunk and angry, did you take a chair and bash it over the other guy’s head? No. Did you ever take a knife and start stabbing people? No. What generally happened was some words would fly, and before anything past an attempted punch happened, the two would be pulled away.
Second, it is a felony, even for those with concealed weapons permits, to carry a gun into a bar (whether or not he is drinking) or carry the gun while drinking at all. Not to say it wouldn’t happen, but, as those with concealed weapons permits are required to be law-abiding citizens (due to the background check), and given that is a felony to carry a weapon while drinking, it would be hihgly improbable that one would carray a gun into a bar. And if he did and the gun was drawn, expect him to go to jail and lose his permit.
Well, in short, no. I’d much prefer to have campus weapon-free. That said, I wonder how the social dynamic would change if everyone, and I do mean everyone, was armed. In such a hypothetical world, any argument could carry the pain of death and you could speculate that people would be more peaceful as a result. Indeed, in such a world, Cho would have either had a hell of a time planning his shooting-spree or have foregone it altogether seeing as how he’d have been shot at immediately.
Everybody would never be armed. It’s not for everybody, and I wouldn’t want everybody to be armed. Only a handful of people are mentally stable enough and have the desire to be allowed to carry guns. However, that’s all you need.
Furthermore, having a weapon in your possession, assuming you were properly trained, makes you be much more careful. I’m going to take as an example one of the most reckless and psychotic people I have never known. He grew up around guns, and the moment there was a weapon anywhere near, he paid attention and made sure everybody else did as well, to whether it was loaded, whether the safety was set, and what direction it was pointed. When I bought my handgun and showed it to him, he said “Point that down, put the safety on, and let me see the chamber. Don’t ever fucking spin that around. Guns are not toys.”
The problem is people who have guns and aren’t properly trained and don’t internally recognize that they really are dangerous weapons.
Still, to me that seems like a ludicrous solution. For every tragedy prevented because people were armed, you’d have others using guns for petty disputes. I’d like to think that the populace was smart enough to show restraint, but really, most people can be right wankers… short-tempered, short-sighted and sometimes just plain short wankers. I know sometimes I can be a wanker and I’d hate to see myself drunk, pissed-off and with a .45 in my belt.
Goddamn man. I really thought you could think things out a little better than that. Did every petty dispute you had end up in a fistfight? What makes you think you’d take the gun out and blast away the other person? If you think that’s a possibility, this really says more about yourself than it does about society, and I don’t every want to see you holding any kind of weapon. The majority of people who own guns know better than to carry one when they’re drunk. The ones that don’t will learn soon enough or end up in jail, or dead.
Most of my friends know how to handle guns. They actively practice at shooting ranges, follow the necessary protocol to keep things safe and always exercise their good sense when armed. Still, it doesn’t preclude mistakes happening and I can clearly remember one incident where a rifle was discharged indoors and the round went into the neighbor’s house. It could have ended horribly, fortunately, Lady Luck was present. It does set a precedent though. As far as guns are concerned, mistakes can often by fatal.
Yeah, I know who you’re talking about. He’s an idiot, and if he didn’t have the pull of the SEALs, he’d be in jail. Regardless, that has nothing to do with bearing arms or concealed weapons permits. Rare, fatal mistakes happen in all aspects of life, not just weapons.
Part 2:
And what of other countries where gun control is active? Canada comes to mind first since it borders the US and is in many ways a sister country (although a remarkably different sister to keep the analogy going). Guns aren’t readily available in Canada and their gun-crime rate is something to be proud of. True, there are about ten people in total in all of Canada but even percentage wise, gun-crime is practically non-existent as compared with the US. The same is true in India. All firearms must be licensed and registered (and if I remember correctly, to own a handgun you have to show you need it) and as a result most people don’t have one. Our gun-crime rate is very low for our population. The same could probably be said about China.
There’s a lot of myths going around regarding gun control. So, here’s some things, along with sources.
1. The murder rates in many nations were already low BEFORE gun control was enacted. Thus, gun control laws can not be credited with lowering crime rates. – Kleck, Point Blank, at 393, 394; Colin Greenwood, Chief Inspector of West Yorkshire Constabulary, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales (1972):31; David Kopel, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies (1992):91, 154.
2. Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.
Australia: Since Australia’s 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%. – Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., “Gun laws don’t reduce crime,” USA Today (May 9, 2002).
England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997. (source)
Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. “The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic,” says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. “Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted.” (source)
Japan: Newspaper headline: Police say “Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low.” Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low: police,” AFP News (August 3, 2001); “A crime wave alarms Japan, once gun-free,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 11 July 1992.
3. British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:
In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.
* “You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States,” stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. “The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America’s.”6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, “the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years.”
* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.
So no … not quite.
Whenever one mentions gun control laws, the critics always retort that the criminal will get guns no matter what. And in that they are correct. Yes, the criminals will always be able to find firearms regardless of what gun control laws are in effect. But you see, that isn’t the issue. It’s like saying that since criminals will always exist, we shouldn’t have laws.
Do you even think before you write? This analogy makes no sense whatsoever. How is taking guns away from law-abiding people similar to removing laws from the books?
Just as there will always be bad apples in a legal system who try to subvert it, there will always be those who contravene gun control laws. The solution to this is not to abolish of prevent gun control laws. The solution is the better train and fund the necessary law enforcing agencies.
Law enforcing agencies can not protect you when you are being mugged in an alley.
Finally, I really think that the issue of bearing firearms has become muddied with the right to freedom, the right to self-defense and to some degree with a man’s ego (and possibly a women’s ego too).
Not muddied, it is an inherent part of protecting ourselves and freedom, not only from criminals but also a power hungry government.
The last time I fired a gun, it gave me a surreal sense of power, one far greater than what I possess without a firearm. Basically, I had the ability to alter life remotely. It’s a scarily addictive and satisfying feeling.
Please, don’t ever own a gun. Now I know why society wants to ban guns and drugs and everything else they are unable to handle themselves.
To kill someone with a knife you have to get up and personal, touch them, feel the life drain from them. With a gun, it’s simply far to easy to kill someone and feel no remorse because you are removed from the victim.
Really? No remorse? I think the shrinks who work with police officers would beg to differ. But then again, maybe you know something they don’t.
Personally, I would think the fact that you took another human being’s life, rather than the method used to do so, would be the cause of remorse and regret. I would also think that those who get exhilaration out of killing would rather do so in an extremely violent manner, because it is the highly physical activities are what makes us feel good.
In many ways it is a god-like feeling.
How do you come up with this? Do you know this for a fact, or are you taking out of your ass?
Part 3:
Furthermore, self-defense should be practiced in a pro-active sort of way.
Tell me, please, how you are going to proactively defend yourself from the guy who jumps you when your walking down the street? How will my dad proactively defend himself when someone walks into his store with a gun in hand?
I’ll tell you how. If the potential criminal thinks you might have a gun on you, he will be less likely to attack you. If the criminal knows my dad keeps a gun behind the counter, the criminal will go find someone else to mug.
Guns are a reactive tool when it comes to self defense.
Possession of a gun is a proactive tool to self-defense.
You use one after a situation has gotten out of control.
Wait, above you said, “I know sometimes I can be a wanker and I’d hate to see myself drunk, pissed-off and with a .45 in my belt.” So, what is it, a petty argument or out of control. Or, do you consider being drunk and in a petty argument out of control?
Examples of pro-active solutions are the usual common-sense cliches: stay away from poorly lit streets at night, have a good alarm system on your house, have multiple lines of communication, don’t piss people off, etc.
Yeah? Not everybody has these options. Not everybody can afford to own their own home, or to install an alarm and pay a monthly fee to an alarm company. Not everybody can afford to live in nice neighborhoods with hired doormen and guards. Some cities are too poor to have well lit streets late at night.
Get this: Some people actually have to work multiple jobs (including night shits) in order to feed their family. Some people have to work in shady areas. Some people have to close their store late at night when everything else nearby is already closed and there’s nobody else to help them or call police if something goes wrong.
But I suppose only the upper classes have the right to be safe?
Lastly, the right to keep and bear arms isn’t intrinsically linked to freedom in the same way that possessing land mines isn’t. Theoretically you could use land mines as a self-defense measure but really, it’s just an asinine idea.
No, comparing land mines to personal weapons is fucking retarded.
In the end, people will always get shot regardless of what gun control laws are in effect (if any). That, on its own, is hardly reason to be so defensive of the right to bear arms. If you really fear for your life and safety and want to have a tool for self=defense, look into the non-lethal alternatives (tasers, cattle sticks, rubber bullets, pepper spray, etc.).
You’re right. Someone is coming after you with a gun, you’re going to stop them with a non-lethal alternative.
Personally, I think the Right to Arm and Keep Bears is far better and more sensible than the one in question…
When I finish reading your novel, I’ll reply.
My comments here are missing a lot of the formatting that was available on the other site, and it makes it difficult to understand.
Well is it the formatting that makes you argument strong or the argument itself? Wanker. In any case, when I moved the comments over, I was in a bit of a rush. I will attempt to go in a restore some formatting. I assume since I personally transferred the comments over from the old site you cant modify them yourself.
the article is strong on its own. the formatting allows lesser beings to understand the argument.
Ok, formatting should be restored to your comments milan. Now for a reply.
The cartoons are awesome
Reese, spam comments will not be tolerated. Don’t be a dick.