It's time once more for:
"The State of the World According to Garrett" (not an official title)
Here I am, once again, tackling the big issues with little to no impact in the world whatsoever. Today's topic? Considering recent events throughout our country, this should be a fairly easy one to guess, because it seems to be on just about everyone's minds. The issue I'm talking about here is that of gun control.
This is a very hot topic in today's America, due to several extremely tragic events involving people armed with firearms murdering large numbers of people, including young children. I do not wish to appear insensitive to these events in any way by discussing gun control; however, in my view, discussing such an important topic can be done without diminishing the terrible impact these tragedies have had. I'm afraid that for some people, the fact that guns are tied to these events makes them feel as though they shouldn't say what they feel for fear of being insensitive, but I don't think that always needs to be the case.
Having said that, I can now move on the arguments at play here. If you aren't a hermit or a young child, chances are that you've heard at least a few of the arguments for or against stronger gun control measures. Ideas for such have been thrown around from making guns completely illegal, to stronger restrictions on gun ownership, to doing nothing at all. I will say this: I think requiring some form of background check for anyone wanting to buy a gun isn't a bad idea. The one problem (and problem may be the wrong word) with that (and one of the major arguments I've heard against stronger gun control/bans) is that there are a lot of illegal and unregistered guns floating around out there. I am certain that many of the weapons owned by gangs and other people who somewhat commonly engage in violent crime weren't purchased legally, and therefore didn't require background checks. I can't imagine that making these checks a federal law will do much to curb those particular weapons. Another problem is that this won't stop anyone who has no prior record, which was the case in several of the major shootings in recent times. Regardless, it can't hurt, and may do some good in some cases.
Other arguments against guns include the fact that guns are among the most deadly of weapons. Gun advocates will argue that murder can be committed with any weapon, including knives, bows, or even cars. The gun control advocates might counter that these weapons are less likely to kill massive numbers of people, and are easier to stop. My personal opinion is that someone who wants to kill a lot of people can probably find a way to do so. If it isn't guns, then it's probably bombs, which are much harder to stop than gunmen, especially if authorities don't know about them until it's too late.
Gun advocates might make the point that the more armed people there are around, the less likely shootings would be (while I personally agree with this theoretically, even I'll admit it can be difficult to prove). Gun control advocates will then argue back that this isn't true, another point will be brought up, and on and on it goes. There are so many angles to approach the issue, and so many varying viewpoints on the validity of those angles, that this argument can really become a tough one to make any headway in. People on both sides are generally set in their ways, and no amount of arguing or "logic" will sway them. So for the rest of this post, I'm going to ignore most of the common arguments for or against guns, and focus on one particular suggestion I've seen around. My hope is that my counter-argument will explain why I feel guns are important, and will therefore (at least somewhat) cover many of the other ideas out there.
Here is the suggestion:
"So why don't we just make guns illegal? We don't really need them in this day and age. It's not like we have to hunt for food or anything. The 2nd Amendment is outdated and should be revoked."
As I've read various commentaries on this issue across the internet, this argument, more or less, is a surprisingly common one. I've even seen certain celebrities say things like, "No one should be allowed to have guns- not even cops." Various "studies" are cited (of unclear origin or value in most cases) to try to prove the point one way or another, and in the end it usually devolves into meaningless name-calling (as is the case with so many things on the internet...).
So why isn't this the right idea? It's true, isn't it? In the days of the Constitution's writing, guns were much more necessary for life support, and that just isn't the case now. Very few people actually rely on guns to provide food for themselves, so why do we even need them? Are gun advocates just a bunch of overly-paranoid "gun nuts" who think everyone is out to get them?
So often, gun advocates answer these questions with arguments like, "We do too hunt for food!" or, "We need the protection in this world we live in! These shootings are proof!" And while I do feel that hunting is a good thing for many people and should be allowed (I enjoy it myself), and that people should be allowed to protect themselves if they desire, neither of these are the main reason that the right to bear arms is so crucial.
So why is it that this right was so specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights? What is it that the founders thought was so important about being allowed to own guns?
To answer that question, we have to consider the circumstances in which this document was written, and the type of people it was written by. These were men who had recently participated in a revolution and the birth of a new nation. These were men who believed that the people should have some kind of representation in a government. They felt that a country was only as strong as its citizens allowed it to be. They wanted to be sure that the people were allowed to publicly share their feelings about the government, without fear, and that they'd be protected from being unjustly treated by their leaders. In short, they wanted to make sure that tyranny would never be possible again. And they were the kind of men that weren't afraid to expel any kind of government that didn't meet these standards. They were revolutionaries who believed that a corrupt government was a government that should be removed; forcibly, if necessary.
With these contexts in mind, it's possible to see that the second Amendment is not primarily there to ensure the citizens would be allowed to hunt, or even necessarily to protect themselves from each other. No, the second Amendment is there to protect the people from the government. I sometimes like the call it the "overthrow the government clause". For fear of sounding too anarchist, let me explain.
Imagine if the British government had established a law prohibiting guns (I know this is unrealistic, but just imagine for a moment). I can pretty confidently say that if that had happened, America would still be subject to the rule of Britain. Why? Because if these restrictions had been in place the colonists could never have overthrown their leaders and formed a new country. The only people with guns would have been the British military, giving the government complete power to do whatever they liked. Any attempt at revolution would have been quickly and harshly put down, more like a massacre than a war, a case of bringing pitchforks to a gunfight. In fact, they likely would never have rebelled at all. However, because they were armed, they were able to wage a war and create this great nation.
Now obviously I'm not saying we should overthrow the government. The point I'm making is that the government needs to fear the people, not the other way around. Should there come a day where our Constitution is dead and the government corrupted, I think the founders would agree with me in saying that it would be our moral responsibility to take action against them. This is why they included the right to bear arms and form militias (notice it even says "bear arms", not just "own arms"). It's essentially another form of checks and balances.
So is there a growing problem with gun violence in our country? It sure seems that way. Does that mean these deadly weapons should be outlawed? Absolutely not. Doing so would create far greater problems than it would solve (and it might be argued that even restricting magazine size or semi-automatic weapons is also infringing on those rights, as the government would then have far superior weapons, but I won't get into that). We as unarmed citizens would be at the mercy of a well-armed government (for an example of this, refer to the dystopian literature and films that are so popular today). If we could trust that no one in our government was at all greedy for power or desperate to implement their views, maybe this wouldn't be true, but we can't. This isn't paranoia- it's common sense.
I don't know what the solution is to solving gun crime. I tend to think it probably has more to do with the people involved than the weapons they choose to use. It also seems to me that the massive amount of publicity and fame these events bring may have something to do with the apparent recent rise in gun violence. Whatever we do, banning firearms will never be the answer. I would unequivocally consider any attempt to do so an act of war against the people. My hope is that we, as a people, can come to recognize how important our firearms are and never allow it to happen.
Thanks for reading. Respectful comments are welcome.
