There have been many terrible shooting incidents in
just the last few months, let alone the last few years in America. And every
time it comes up, there tend to be two polarized sides to the issue of guns and
regulation: stricter management of permits and limitations on types of guns you
can carry or own and those who advocate more leniency and openness with carry
or concealed carry permits. The ideas are both for protection, though one can
argue the former side is much more about managing gun sales than permits, since
those are difficult enough to get that most people would just try to get guns
illegally, which is still able to be done. The latter is about maintaining
protection by the citizens and for citizens. Even the mere pulling out of a gun
in a situation can diffuse the violence that might result, because we have a
very visceral reaction to guns as something dangerous, moreso than blades. The
last time I even discussed gun rights in “On Gun Rights and Civil War” I
noted that we should be responsible in our use of weapons, which still stands
as a point I would make clear with gun enthusiasts. Of course we have a right
to protect ourselves, but self defense should not be exaggerated to the level
of vigilante justice, as much as I might admire Frank Castle, otherwise called
the Punisher in Marvel Comics, in a childish sense as an anti hero.
Fundamentally, we ought to recognize the danger of guns, but not to the extent
of letting our concern grow into fear and paranoia. A gun is a tool and by
itself, apart from modifications and advanced technology, does not fire by
itself. It takes an agent behind the tool to utilize it in any way, effective
or otherwise. So I’d say we focus not on the tools, but the users.
Gun control does not, in itself, protect people any
more than disease control absolutely protects people. The former is more
unpredictable than the latter, though, since the legality of guns does not
affect criminals, while viruses and bacteria are bound by limitations of
biology that enable us to develop immunities over time and understand how they
work. We cannot expect people to just obey laws restricting guns when there
will always be access to them outside the law. The solution would be not to
enforce stricter gun laws, as it would only disarm people that would otherwise
use guns in a responsible manner. The mere abuse of guns by criminals does not
mean law abiding citizens should be prevented from getting access to them. Gun
control should therefore be distinguished from gun regulation, which is simply
making sure people understand the dangers of guns and are educated in proper
use, as well as limiting access to people who may pose a threat to others in
possessing a gun that can be loaded. Gun control may as well be called gun
suppression in the case of trying to keep legal gun use as rare as possible for
ordinary citizens, maintaining it only with law enforcement and the military.
This excessive form is no better than a deficient policy of just letting anyone
get access to a gun without any sort of waiting period or other such protocol
involved with gun registration, permits and such. A balance, however difficult
to precisely pinpoint, is better than letting laws go too far or fall into
disuse.
Gun carries in general, do not, by necessity,
encourage more violence. If anything, it can be said to have the reverse
effect. And proper training will ensure that, not only will people be able to
defend themselves without excessive violence, but will not be victims of
attackers because they cling to a ridiculous absolute pacifism that suggests
they should not even defend themselves with any amount of force, let alone
nonlethal violence. A shot to the arm will hurt as much as a shot to the chest
and disable the attacker all the same with the incredible pain that results
from the impact. Basic training of aiming, gun maintenance and the like will
all be a precaution and one may never have to actually use that knowledge in
practice, but a preventative measure is not always something actually realized
if one is safe in where one travels and goes in groups as much as possible in
dangerous areas. Pepper spray is an alternative that can work, especially with
women who are commonly frightened of guns, it appears. But this doesn’t mean
that there aren’t guns that a woman can use without concern of risk to herself.
I’m no gun expert, but that’s the beauty of gunsmithing as an art: you can
design functional weapons for pretty much anyone with enough time. I was at a
gun store a few weeks ago and there were guns small enough to fit in an average
man’s hand and some that were practically as long as one’s forearm, and I’m
talking handgun, not something much larger in caliber and power. There is a
sense of danger that comes with owning one, much more than even an entire
collection of live steel blades. Guns kill instantly or maim horribly, swords
are archaic and antiquated in use: they only appeal in fantastical stories with
anachronistic manifestations; or lightsabers and vibroblades from Star Wars.
With that in mind, gun use should and does commonly have safety measures and
rules governing their use. 1) Treat every gun as if it were loaded, 2) Do not
aim at something unless you intend to shoot it, the list goes on. I don’t
consider myself a gun enthusiast, but as Batman demonstrates (I know, using
comic book characters as examples undercuts the seriousness of the argument,
but permit me my fandom), even if you have had traumatic experiences with guns,
you should not let that past experience make you unwilling to see the gun for
what it is, become knowledgeable about it and understand it as others use it
and why they use it. Experience with guns dictates that you take a position of
one who wants to use it, but it also necessitates a sense of self control in
taking on such a dangerous weapon.
The right to arms is not something explicitly
protected by religion in the slightest. There are arguments in the bible that
suggest pacifism, particularly in the Gospels with Jesus. The most obvious that
comes to mind is turning the other cheek. And the argument of the right to bear
arms being a God given right seems stretched, since the most basic of natural
rights given by God tend to be: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The
means by which your liberty is secured would not necessarily be arguable towards
using weapons if the creator of the universe supposedly gave you those rights. Wouldn’t
it also protect them in its own way? Of course, there is a counter claim that
this would encourage idleness, so God would grant us permission of self
defense. I’m not denying that, but it’s implicit, not explicit, in terms of an
argument from theology. Fundamentally, I won’t say that religion prohibits any
such ideas of self defense and a right to bear arms, but if you’ve read my blog
even a bit, you know I don’t think we should really use religious tradition or
faith to justify any position we hold, no matter how logical and correct it may
happen to be. Defend gun rights with philosophy and logic, not tradition and
convictions about the supernatural.
Guns are altogether a duplicitous weapon, both
aiding and harming us depending on the intent behind their use. The fact that
they are dangerous because of the unpredictability and otherwise dangerous
nature of humanity does not mean they should be destroyed. Disarmament is the
path to a utopia where we could be killed by any natural threat, such as
beasts, let alone the chance of attack from people who manage to design and
construct weapons themselves post pacifism, and extraterrestrials, should they
come to our planet and be hostile in nature. Guns should be an option in the
same vein as abortion, in the sense that we should familiarize ourselves with
them even if we ourselves do not prefer to utilize the process or tool in
question. They should be safe: properly maintained and regulated from
explicitly dangerous people as best we can, legal: not prohibited merely
because they could be dangerous or there is a moral objection to them, and
rare: we should be able to resolve problems without guns, but should be able to
use a gun if the situation demands it. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.
No comments:
Post a Comment