Firearms and firearm regulation have always been a hot political topic in the United States mainly because of the considerable political division amongst its citizens – namely, the liberals and the conservatives. Both have different views on many things and well, as mentioned and most certainly expected, about guns. Here are some arguments that I present that would be against stricter gun control measures.
1. The Second Amendment
Much has been debated and tackled about the Second Amendment but not much of its terms have been defined and to initiate proper understanding, it would be very hard to understand things piece by piece if we cannot define what it should mean. The original constitutional text states that:
“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.”
Therefore it is reasonably logical to think that the prime purpose of the Second Amendment is that in time of warfare or a disturbance of peace by military powers, either foreign or domestic, and the five branches of the US military – which is comprised of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard – have failed to defend the nation, then the only line of national defense left is the civilians themselves. Such would be unachievable if stricter gun laws would take effect that hinders a common citizen from owning or purchasing a firearm.
2. Gun ownership and mental health
Mental health should be one of the main focuses by policymakers rather than firearms bans or more extensive background checks. The mere circumstance that we should be allocating more funds on better healthcare services rather than banning guns or implementing more extensive and expensive background checks should be a concern to citizens. Psychological illnesses are as life-threatening as physical illnesses and should not be taken lightly as we have witnessed that people with serious mental health issues – such as those with severe psychosis or other disorders with psychotic features – pose a threat to themselves or society if they are left untreated and out of proper care. If you hand them any type of weapon and even with their bare fists, they can inflict harm or be of considerable threat to those around them. Guns aren’t the reason why they act the way they do when the problem is obviously related to their mental illness, which often is treatable and can be managed given that they can have access to good healthcare services.
3. Researches and surveys are often biased
You cannot survey all 300 million American citizens at once. That would quite an extraordinary feat. So, what researchers do is select a sample of that population and conduct a study based on the responses on that certain population. One disadvantage that can be brought up from that technique is bias. If, for example, you researched on a state that is against guns then the results you would get would be against guns and the same would go if the state is otherwise. Basing an entire argument on a single piece of research would be entirely inconclusive and not entirely reliable because of bias. Other than bias, their population sample would determine the margin of error. Because the larger the population, the lesser the margin of error there is. Researches usually have hundreds and even thousands of people in them but if one were to make a study ultimately conclusive, you have to get at least a considerable number of the population that will truly reflect the objectivity of the outcome. If you want to make a study about American people, more so on knowing how Americans view the use of firearms and the laws attached to it, you should, at least, consider 1% of the sample to make your study reliable and valid – which would be 3 million people from all 50 states. Since most researches gather hundreds to thousands, how can it be entirely conclusive? Surely, 50,000 people cannot speak for 300,000,000.
4. Gun control means nothing in the black market, much so the dark net
‘If there’s a will, there’s a way’, they say. The internet black market hosts a lot of illegal merchandise – from pirated movies to fake passports and diplomas. Aside from that, there also are, as we commonly associate it with, the distributing and selling of illegal and controlled substances, human trafficking and illegal firearms. The black market is not exclusive to the physical world, it also is accessible to the cyber world and it is appropriately called the ‘dark net‘. Everything illegal and semi-legal is sold in the dark net. You name it, they have it. From drugs to illegal currency, the dark net is the cyber black market that people engaged in illicit activities sell their products into. And, as you might have guessed, it does include illicit firearms. So, what if we permanently ban firearms or increase explicit gun laws that would make the purchase of firearms an arduous process for the common citizen? The criminals would be armed and we would be defenseless and that is not what the Bill of Rights or the U.S. Constitution stand for.
5. Gun bans do not guarantee lesser crime rates like in UK and Australia
Though it is undeniable that homicide rates have decreased ever since the United Kingdom banned guns, murder rates have grown significantly high and is growing higher ever since and when the issue has been brought up, the topic of crime being under reported stood as a big issue as well. Australia has also been suffering the alarming increase of violent crimes. The primary weapons, since firearms are now banned, are knives (and citizens are pushing through the ban of knives as well), poisons and even bare hands (through strangulation). These go to show that guns do not bring the brutality or unlawful intent in every person but through these misconduct and illegal activities that we have come to associate with firearms, it brings firearms into a negative light. This should suggest that guns are not the problem when it comes to crime rates.
6. Guns don’t kill people
Not even weapons of mass destruction can harm people. That is a fact. You can apply the same logic to knives, poisons, bare hands and most commonly, with guns. What’s behind the gun is the person with the capacity to shoot but behind every person behind every gun is an intention and those intentions are either good or bad. Fortunately, the primary reason why people acquire gun is for personal protection, target shooting – such as competitive shooting and skeet – and for hunting. It is rather unfortunate that people have associated guns with harm or danger when it is used commonly for protection and for recreational purposes. The mainstream media is partly to blame for all the bad press against firearms because ‘bad guys’ or antagonists are often portrayed with having a firearm, either of standard or high capacity, with the full intention to kill the poor, defenseless protagonist but how do movies end? The good guy gets to defend himself with a gun.
Do you agree or disagree? Any other points you wish to add? Let us know by posting a comment below.