Nowhere is the issue of Americans longing for 1776 more present than in the issue of gun control. Gun-toting Americans see gun control laws as an offense to the men of 1776, who proudly carried guns and respected others’ rights to do so. However, regardless of whether gun control is justified, it is important to note that things have changed considerable since 1776, so the argument that “it’s what the Founding Fathers wanted” is not as valid as it seems.The first difference between 1776 and today that relates to gun control is the fact that the reason people need guns is different. In 1776, society was more agrarian, less industrial, and more of a “pioneer culture.” In colonial times guns were not only helpful to deter crime, but also necessary for survival. Guns were essential for hunting, protection against robbers or invading Indians, and many other uses. Because of this, the way people viewed gun control in 1776 was very different from today: back then, t would have seemed far more tyrannical to take away people’s guns than it does now.
Next, remember that in 1776 guns were very different than they are now. At the time of the American Revolution the best weapons were primitive flintlock muskets, and pistols could only fire one shot. Today, though, we have a wide variety of extremely deadly firearms, from handguns to high-powered rifles to automatic weapons. These make it possible for a single person to kill many other people quickly and easily, which is a concept that simply didn’t exist in the Founding Fathers’ time.
However, there is one fundamental aspect of gun control that has not changed since 1776: gun control can act as a deterrent to crime. Similar to the way the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) deters nuclear war, guns can prevent crime by acting as an equalizer. Today, pro-gun and conservative politicians often cite this effect as justification for less gun control.
So, what can this tell us about the issue of gun control? One thing is clear: preserving the right to bear arms simply because “the Founding Fathers would want it” is an absurd an invalid argument. So much has changed technologically and societal since 1776 that the principles behind the 2nd Amendment are radically different today. However, there is still some merit to the 2nd Amendment as a deterrent to crime. Also, from a libertarian perspective the problem changes only superficially—since libertarians believe that the preservation of civil liberties is the most important thing, the social issues surrounding guns are irrelevant. From are more practical perspective, though, these issues must be taken into consideration. Also, think about this: even if less gun control would deter crime, what sort of weapons should be banned? Should automatic weapons be allowed? What about assault rifles or explosives? I’ll leave it to my readers to decide for themselves.
5 comments:
I really think that less gun control would only be a deterrent to crime if a lot of people owned guns and carried them everywhere. Some people just do not want to own guns. If gun control laws let up up and 700,000 more Americans buy guns, that will probably lead to an increase in crime, because if 1/4 of the country is armed, and the other 3/4 is not, and the people with guns can just carry them whenever they want, won't that make the people without guns extremely vulnerable?
The cool thing about guns is: if you don't have one, you can't shoot one. I think if anything is going to be done about gun laws, first the government needs to crack down on the selling and buying of illegal fire arms.
Every time I have this discussion, my liberal drips off of me, but I honestly do not see why any citizen needs to own a firearm, not to mention any sort of automatic rifle. I especially do not see why they need to carry guns around with them.
Now, I'm not talking about people living in the deep south who can go big game hunting in their backyard. I'm talking about people living in the suburbs and cities. I honestly just don't see a need.
Keep in mind, I'm also (as my father puts it) a "liberal weenie". And I just don't think that people need guns. I know you can throw examples at me when people do. I'm just opposed to any taking of life, regardless of reason.
"Liberal" is not a derogatory word, and don't let anyone make you think otherwise. Obviously the libertarian (and in this case, conservative) idea of letting people own whatever kind of deadly weapon they want is not always the best answer. For example: would you let people have atomic bombs? I don't think so. There is always a point where the logic of deterrence breaks down, the question is just figuring out where it is.
I agree about illegal firearms--we really need to do a much better job of preventing dangerous goods from coming into the US without the government's knowledge.
I see no problem with anyone being opposed to people killing other people--in fact, that is the purpose of government: to protect us from ourselves. Conservatives think that government is not the solution in this case, and that we should allow people to have guns so that criminals who have guns no longer have an advantage over everyone else.
I think technology with continue to change the issue in the future, hopefully for the better. For example, what happens when police stare using Google Earth-like tools to spot crime as soon as it happens? We will have to wait and see if technology gives more power to the individual or to the government.
I think the main point you are missing from the libertarian perspective, as I understand it, is that it is a freedom to choose to own guns or not. When you are told you can't have this choice it is a violation of your freedom. It was also intended by the founding fathers that the government could be overthrown by the people. It is hard for the people to fight this if they have no weapons with which to fight.
As for limits on weapons, I don't feel there really needs to be a limit but if I had to draw a line, I would say nothing military grade. This still gives people plenty of options in weapons while keeping the those who talk of people owning atomic bombs in a more realistic frame of mind.
I don't know anyone responsible gun owner that wants to take a life. That being said if it is between me and him, Or between him and my wife or kids, Then me, my wife and kids will prevail. If you do not think the government can throw your ass into a detention camp you need to read history. 1940 allot of citizens when they needed their rights the most were rounded up and tossed into detention camps. Also read about why Japan did not invade us after their attack on pearl harbor. Every heard the saying. Their is a riffle behind every blade of grass? You live in a fantasy world if you think their is no way in hell that America will every be out gunned. That other countries won't ever turn on us ever or our own government for that matter.
By the way their are already restriction on owning machine guns or assault riffles as they are known and defined. The sporting riffles we have now are NOT machine guns. You can not hold the trigger down and it unloads all the bullets in the magazine. You have to pull the trigger every time you want to fire a shot. It is the same with a semi automatic hand gun. So I guess those will now be called assault hand guns huh? lol Yea it has nothing to do with protecting life all it has to do with is taking away our means to protect ourselves. Why else would they be wanting to allow grandfathering? If this new feinsteen bill was already in effect the school shootings would have still happened. Just like that did in columbine with the assault weapon ban was in effect. Want to stop this? Get rid of the gun free zones were victims go to die.
Post a Comment