Stupid Arguments for the Gun Debate

<Hello everyone! I’m finally back to my usual politically motivated rantings. This time, it’s a bit more personal and very opinionated – opposed to my normal posts which argue both sides. It has been a few months since the gun debate reached its peak; however, I didn’t really have much time to write about it during that period, so here’s my late contribution to the gun control debate. Please do remember that this is an outsiders opinions, and they may be incorrect and not an accurate analyzation of the situation as I have never held a gun or lived in America.>

It is no doubt that guns can bring an end to a person’s life in mere seconds. This is exemplified in the wars plaguing our world as well as the numerous incidents – such as the Aurora shootings, Columbine, and etc. These things, enforce the belief that behind the trigger of the gun, there lies immense power. The question that has always been asked by pro-gun control advocates is,  “For what reasons should guns be left in the possession of civilians?” In response to this controversial question, pro-gun advocates have presented countless arguments, which include:

“It is not the gun that kills people”

Whenever I hear this argument, I cringe. Of course, it is true that it is the person pulling the trigger that kills people, but – in the past few years – it has become increasingly apparent that there are quite a few of these kinds of people. As such, wouldn’t it be a reasonable decision to just increase gun control? I mean, its obvious that these people can do more harm to society when equipped with guns. By eliminating the gun factor (to some extent) we would be able to lessen the damage they can bring to society. What about those who aren’t “bad people” and wouldn’t use guns to hurt others? It would just have to be a sacrifice by them for the rest of society to be safe. The thing about living in a community is that sometimes we  have to make sacrifices for the betterment of society as a whole; we can’t afford to be selfish or else horrors will continue to happen and innocent people – especially women and children – will continue to die. The way I see it, this situation is like the issue of alcohol. Alcohol isn’t really something thats supported and in some cultures it is taboo because some people have done stupid things – such as get into fights and drive drunk – under the influence. However, not everyone does stupid things because they drink. In fact it is not the alcohol that does stupid things it is the people – and how they regulate themselves. Therefore, why don’t the people in societies and cultures just say it’s not the drink, but the people that do does stupid things, so let’s just allow the usage of alcohol again? It’s because they know that without it, society will be better and because they are willing to make personal sacrifices for the rest of society.

“It is our right to bear arms!”

Yes, it is a right given to the people to bear arms, but there is a massive flaw in this argument. Just because you’re given the right to, doesn’t mean you should exercise that right. For example, let’s say that you are given the right to use child labor. But just because you are given the right, doesn’t mean you have to exercise it, because it is morally and ethically wrong to do so. The gun situation is similar. How is it morally or ethically right for people to carry around guns? It’s like carrying a hatchet around. You just don’t do it. Things tend to escalate quicker with a gun. Let’s say there was a scenario where a woman tried to steal another woman’s purse. Now with a gun, the “victim” could have taken out the gun and fired based on the concept of “self defense.” Of course this is an extreme, but just because it’s an extreme doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. Without a gun, the “victim” could have possibly lost her purse but no life would have been taken – even if it was a life of a thief (but who knows, the thief could have merely been trying to find money to feed her dying daughter at home.

Serving Justice

Now, that scenario also brings me to my third point. Arming civilians also results in civilians coming under the misconception that they can serve justice. The justice system begins to crumble and individuals begin to “take justice into their own hands.” Without much explaining, most people will understand why allowing individuals to “carry out” justice is a bad idea. For those that don’t understand why, here’s the full explanation. An individual is far inferior compared to a whole system when we begin discussing the concept of justice. An individual is extremely susceptible to factors such as emotion and bias, while a legal system is built to eliminate such factors that may result in unfair rulings and decisions regarding justice.

In conclusion there are a lot of reasons why I am personally against guns. If you have any other arguments that you want to present and try to convince me that it is a valid claim, do comment below. ^^

P.S. It’s good to be back doing what I used to do – which means writing political posts, not just photography related ones.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s