On Banning Guns

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about guns. I hope by writing some things down someone might be able to make some sense of what is going on in our world.

It is immoral to employ force or the threat of force to deny a person the ability to decide for themselves what they require for personal safety.

It is a completely valid argument to suggest that the threat of a madman with an assault weapon is best mitigated with another assault weapon. Cops seem to understand this. They have to keep up with the latest technology in order to have any hope of effectively protecting the public from sophisticated criminals. The same has to apply to every individual. There is no guarantee a cop will be there to save you when you need his gun the most.

The existence of a means of destruction both creates the threat and the justification for it’s distribution. One gun sets the stage for a tyrant. Two (in the hands of two people) has the potential to begin to offset the potential for misuse. It’s a situation where the more people who have guns, the less of a threat any single gun owner is.

Of course those who have a record of violence should be kept from legally owning a deadly weapon. But because the law does not bind the criminal, it is necessary that men be free under the law to act as they see fit to disarm the criminal elements of society. If laws prevent good men from acting to maintain their own safety and others, then the law is immoral and creates an environment for evil to thrive.

The only way that banning guns makes any sense is if you rid the world of them entirely. Assuming you could eliminate guns entirely, and keep them from being manufactured in the future is ridiculous. But for the sake of argument, if you think gun bans are good and would lead to positive outcomes, then police, military and government officials would have to be included in the ban. Saying only government and law officials can have guns to make sure the ones who cannot, do not, is unacceptable. So long as even one exists, there is a potential for someone to do another harm with it. If there is any hope of solving the problem of people misusing guns, bans must effectively remove all guns, not just some, from society.

But do you think that cops will give up their guns or that liberals would even suggest they should? No way. Their guns keep us safe. Their guns are good. See the double standard? It’s so stupid, really. In a single breath they are saying that guns are both evil and the source of safety. That is idiotic logic!

The very existence of guns in a world of people creates the potential for it to bring harm. This potential for harm is all the justification the individual needs to demand his right to defend himself from it.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “On Banning Guns

  1. Sounds like a well-thought-out & reasonable argument to me… I agree… only thing I might add is “responsible ownership” — people running around with guns like they drive cars (think dumbass) would not be a good idea (IMO).

  2. “It is a completely valid argument to suggest that the threat of a madman with an assault weapon is best mitigated with another assault weapon.”

    Disagree.

    It only takes one bullet, maybe two or three, to stop a madman with an assault weapon. However, if you are faced with a large group of madmen with butter knives, an assault weapon might come in handy for defense. But how many groups of armed criminals have attacked in public places lately?

  3. Of course those who have a record of violence should be kept from legally owning a deadly weapon. But because the law does not bind the criminal, it is necessary that men be free under the law to act as they see fit to disarm the criminal elements of society. If laws prevent good men from acting to maintain their own safety and others, then the law is immoral and creates an environment for evil to thrive.

  4. So because someone could conceivably defend themselves with an inferior weapon you’ve decided guns above some arbitrary threshold should be made unavailable to law abiding persons? Isn’t it clear that a society where only lawbreakers have sophisticated weapons is a less desirable state of affairs? Who should have the ability to decide what means of protection is capable enough to protect your life? I say no one but you.

  5. So if I decide that I need a Bengal tiger for protection, I should be able to walk around in public with my big cat on a leash?

    You cannot use morality to determine what is law. Morality is completely subjective.

  6. You are echoing a fatalistic line of reasoning that will ensure future generations 100 years from now will be dealing with the same problem of mass murders committed by citizens with weapons of war–except the problem will only get worse because guns will become more technologically advanced and more efficient at a killing large groups of people.

    You and many others say, “If we make them (weapons of war) illegal, the criminals will still have them.”

    Maybe so, but if the law is enforced and honest efforts are made to confiscate the weapons, over time their existence would decrease–and with that decrease, the number of school/mall/church shootings.

    I like your philosophy that people should have the ability to decide how to protect themselves, but there are too many idiots in America that are not responsible enough with their guns–hence the latest tragedy. Should the non-idiots have to suffer because of those people who sell guns illegally, don’t store their guns properly, shoot themselves and others accidentally, and murder children? I say yes.

  7. True. Safety is certainly subjective, but your right to walk down the sidewalk without being mauled by my tiger is not.

    It may seem like I am using an extreme comparison, but when little kids gets killed in their classrooms, such comparisons are necessary.

  8. Neither is the fact that you have the right to walk down the street with a tiger if you want. It’s your responsibility to make sure it doesn’t cause harm.

    If you have a tiger with the intent to do harm to others then you are in essence no better or worse than someone who shoots up a school. The tiger just becomes your chosen means of destruction.

    The convenience of replacing a gun (inanimate object) with a tiger (potentially dangerous sapient being) to make your point cannot be understated.

  9. The comparison is between two “potentially dangerous” means of self defense. To say that a gun is not “potentially dangerous” is the height of ignorance.

  10. Safety is an illusion. The precious gift and short time span (relative to the age of our planet) of individual human life seems to allude the awareness of many. If we spent more time, effort, and energy respecting and taking care of ourselves instead of our possessions…..the world would be quite different.

  11. I don’t disagree with this. In light of the conversation on gun bans, I would say “taking care of ouselves” is synonymous with acting in a way we determine for ourselves will lead us away from harm. I cant tell you that guns are not part of that equation. The right to pursue our own happiness as endowed by our creator and reaffirmed in the bill of rights leaves little room to argue in favor of sending armed men to your home to confiscate your weapons.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s