It has been no surprise for gun control discussions to have a tendency of being emotional and fiery, with civility and logic being blown away by feelings of anger, fear, and frustration. Most pro-gun control and gun ban control arguments are likely to be full of red herrings, fallacious reasoning, and emotional appeals, even when created by the highly educated. Most of us have heard the clichéd definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.
It is a great description of the discussions on gun control. A horrific shooting has stunned the nation. People are panicking; everyone is thinking what if it happened at their job or at their children’s school. Then, each side has offered the same unimaginative solutions, and we end up with the same compromises. After several months, another horrific shooting has occurred.
Discussions on anti-gun control significantly say that:
- Because we are giving value to human life, we need to make sure that these kinds of guns will not be available for people who are able to kill people without any justification – There are cases in which the use of a gun is lesser of 2 evils, which is thereby, important for making sure the overall good of the society. These instances are the exception and not the rule. Thus, we need to limit the use of guns to only those instances in which killing other humans is needed.
- Assault rifles and handguns are useful only for killing people – Guns are significantly killing machines. Unlike most of other weapons, such as tire irons or knives, guns are not very useful for any other purpose than killing. Certainly, handguns are tools to kill other humans. They are surely not that useful for hunting or killing animals, and they are not very useful for purposes other than killing. Killing human beings are generally harmful while preservation of human life is generally great.
- In order to reduce unjustifiable killings, we have to restrict guns to military and police – In order to effectively put limitation to the use of guns to only those cases of necessity, we need to limit the possession of guns to military and police. This will ensure that those who are given the power to carry guns will also be accountable to the people through their elected leaders and the officials that these leaders have appointed. It will also protect us from vigilante justice and mob rule.
- There has been a correlation between ownership of private gun and the rate at which guns are used in unjustifiable killings – Enabling private citizens to own guns will cause more harm than good. There has been a direct correlation between the rates of gun ownership and the rate of gun crimes. While there is a possibility of high rates of gun crimes to induce people to buy more guns, it is more likely that it happens vice versa. More gun purchases will lead to more gun crimes. It particularly makes sense in life of the fact that an essential number of firearms have been stolen every year in the United States.
Discussions on pro-gun control generally go as follows:
- Guns are at times important to defend one’s life from criminal attack – At times, guns are necessary for self-defense. Even when each gun is removed from the planet, one may imagine instances in which a gun is still needed for self-defense. An infirm person and elderly attacked by a youthful, strong, and athletic robber. Private citizens sometimes need guns to defend life and successfully limb.
- The right to defend one’s life from criminal attack is important – If any right can be fundamental, the right to defending one’s life and having to limb from criminal attack needs to be. Logically, our other rights would be of little use if you would be able to defend them from violent and unlawful violation. While military and police are officially tasked with the maintenance of peace, they are not able to be in all places at once. It has not been a secret that in poor and high-crime neighborhoods, the level of police protection is usually lower than that of the rich and low-crime neighborhood.
- Therefore, the right to own a gun has been fundamental – The right to bear and keep arms is fundamental. If we would accept that the right to self-defense is fundamental and that guns are at times, necessary for self-defense, it will necessarily follow that the right to a gun is important.
It has not been sure if there is a possibility for both anti-gun and pro-gun people to live in the same world without friction. However, we will be able to agree at least that there are so many people who must not get their hands on a gun but still do.