Back Then, We Could Just Go Buy Guns

            As I mentioned before, the debate over gun control stems from a dissidence between protecting the rights of an individual to do as they please, and protecting others from harm. Legislation meant to remedy this situation is typically aimed at allowing individuals to own guns, but restricting which guns can be purchased and the prerequisites for such an individual to purchase a gun. Superficially, these seem like great ideas, but they fall apart in practice. All guns are deadly. Sure, banning assault rifles seems like common sense to some, but a simple pistol can kill all the same. As for the background checks, that only stops the repeat offender, and that is still only if they cannot find a loophole to exploit or a way around the check. The problem with gun control is that it truly does a poor job of deferring gun violence while simultaneously justifying the right to gun ownership.

            The claim that everyone always defers to when defending gun ownership in the United States is the second amendment to the constitution which bars legislators from infringing on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. I mean it was the second rule ever put in place by the founders of the country, who could ever oppose such a thing. The answer, if you hadn’t already guessed, is me. People view gun legislation as needing to dance around this amendment, as if it were just absolute truth, and the idea of ever repealing it was ludicrous. I ask, what would honestly be so bad about a world in which people couldn’t just go out and buy guns? Obviously, there are a lot of arguments to address, so let’s begin.

            What does the law actually say? If you’ve ever wondered why courts have spent so much time debating about what the writers intended when they wrote the law, it is because this is all they wrote: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The key word here is militia. Militia refers to armed forces of the civilian population as opposed to a formal military. The definition then splits to refer to either, a supplemental force to back an established military, or a rebellious force to oppose an established military. Regardless of which definition you use, the law makes sense for a newly formed, 18^th century nation. In today’s context, however, neither scenario has any real practicality.

            The budget of the United States military is currently in the hundreds of billions range. At its disposal are fleets of tanks, jets, and ships. If needed, missiles can be launched abroad. Its honestly surprising that human soldiers are even still a thing. I cannot imagine any circumstances in which the deciding factor in an international altercation is going to be a well regulated militia.

            Okay so we have this superpower, supposedly fighting in our best interest. What if this power loses sight of the public interest and we are tossed into a dystopian militant state? Well then of course we will need that well regulated militia to rebel against the forces that be, and to reclaim the freedom that this country was built on. Right? Of course, all of those resources I mentioned earlier are still present, and now they are aimed at you and your closet of firearms that the writers guaranteed you the rights too. Let’s just say the odds are not in your favor.

            So why do so many continue to argue that guns are a necessity. Well, I have a right to defend myself and my family don’t I. Of course you do, and what better way to keep them safe than to remove gun access from those that might want to hurt them. The same argument is always presented in response to gun protection. If you outlaw guns, you remove guns from the law-abiding citizens and give exclusive access to the criminals, leaving everyone else defenseless.

Let me point out the biggest fallacy with this school of thought. Marijuana is illegal, yet I guarantee I could get my hands on some by the end of the day if my life depended on it. So why is it still so widely available? Simple, it’s a plant. All you need are some seeds and a suitable environment and you have marijuana. Guns, on the other hand, are complex mechanical devices that require a lot of precision in their manufacturing. If the production of firearms were illegalized, criminals would be left with the option of making their own or illegally importing them from outside of the country. I am going to guess that the vast majority of criminals could not manufacture their own gun if you held a gun to their head.

As for importing, take a guess which is harder to sneak passed customs, a bag of drugs or a metal firearm. What about Mexico? Where do you think all of their guns come from? Firearm production in Mexico is incredibly limited. Its far easier to sneak them in from the United States where anyone can just buy them, than to obtain them from within the country. The criminals who would have guns then, wouldn’t be the ones breaking into neighborhood homes to pilfer. They would be the high level, resourceful criminals, who most likely don’t really care about you or your family.

So, take a moment to really consider the following question. Do you honestly think your family is safer when anyone and everyone can go purchase a gun and decide they want to shoot one of your loved ones? Even if you did have a gun in your home, you maybe could have gotten to it in time, and maybe could have fended the assailant off with it.

That brings us to the last, and surprisingly most convincing argument for gun ownership, hunting. While I am personally not a big fan of hunting, I do not entirely object to its practice, as long as it is done for food and not sport. Short of taking up a nonanimal based diet, hunting is often one of the most humane forms of acquiring meat. In terms hunting deer and similar game, it is also without a suitable alternative to gun use. In the most black and white context, I would have to say that I would side with the complete illegalization of firearm production regardless of intended use, simply due to the associated risk far outweighing the justifiable merit.

In summary, guns are dangerous and all but useless in the present day United States. Their obsoletion has been long coming and it is time to start taking action. The process will undoubtedly be long and rife with errors, but the end result would be well worth the efforts. Looking back at life 50 years ago from our modern prospective, we are shocked at the ignorance of a society that let children play with mercury. My aspiration is that we will have a future that looks back on us in shock, where schoolchildren will read about the turbulent times when people could just go buy guns and ask their teacher in disbelief, how we could have been so stupid.

-AMS