So I am in Portugal this summer and love to talk about politics with the local kids. I work at a laboratory that employs people from all over Europe so I get a nice perspective. Tonight I was enjoying a nice bottle of Portuguese red wine when one of the Spanish guys brought up the topic of gun control. For once I wasn't the first person to bring up a somewhat controversial political/social topic so I jumped in immediately with the idea that any of the girls who generally oppose controversial conversation topics would blame him instead of me for bringing it up (normally I get blamed).
There were 2 other Spanish people hanging out with us, along with 2 other Portuguese and 1 American. The Europeans, as far as I understood them, all supported stronger restrictions on guns than I and the other American did. Let me first try to summarize their argument for stricter gun control, even the mandate that no-one should own a gun.
Our argument was often (I'll address the other arguments later) centered around a certain hypothetical situation in which a robber with a gun enters a law-abiding citizen's house with the objective of either robbing the house or of killing the individuals living there. Their argument was this: if everyone is allowed to have a gun, there is a higher probability that someone gets killed (the robber or the family members), even if the robber did not want to kill the family in the house. They said that in a country like the US, everyone is allowed to have a gun and that when the robber enters, the home-owner is likely to shoot him or vice versa because both are armed. There is a higher probability that someone loses their life if everyone is allowed to have a gun. To them, this argument (along with their other arguments that I will explain later), gave the federal government the right to mandate that no individuals could own a gun.
I disagree with this. I don't think that the federal government should be allowed to say that all citizens of the country do not have the right to own a gun. At least in the US, freedom is the principle that I hold supreme over everything. Certainly yet to the contrary, I give up certain freedoms in pursuance of the general well-being of the nation as a whole. Like paying for education or our military, I am taxed on my paycheck or when I buy something and that tax money goes to funding a program that benefits everyone in the country. I acknowledge this as an impingement of freedom, but I do not immediately oppose it because (1) it is not immediately a controversial topic that I am considering and (2) I might endorse the funding of this certain program even understanding the impingement of freedom that it requires. I realize that I must do must more research on policies that impinge upon the citizen's freedom for the benefit of the greater society, but I have a limited amount of time so for now I'm gonna talk about gun control.
Let's get back to this hypothetical situation we were talking about earlier where a robber (with murder potential) enters my house. The Europeans were saying that I should not be allowed to have a gun to defend myself because if I had one, there would be a higher probability that someone would get killed in the exchange. They said that if he is the only one with a gun, he will be able to put myself and my whole family in a room while he robs me of all my belongings. Then no-one gets hurt.
Does an armed intruder expect to get shot if he enters a random house? Well wait a second, if he knows that it is illegal to own a gun and he thinks that the people that live there are law-abiding citizens (unlike himself) and will not own a gun, what is stopping him from robbing every house on the street? He's the only one with a gun so he can rob all the law-abiding citizens who don't have guns. But according to the Europeans, this is fine because no-one gets shot. They say that this is what the police are for, arriving after the robbery and attempting to replace your belongings and attempting to catch the robber.
I think that every person should have the right to own a gun. Let's revisit this same situation slightly altered; let's say that the home-owner is allowed by his government to own a gun and has purchased one. Now the robber comes in. The homeowner hears something unusual and wakes up, slightly confused as to what the disturbance could be. He knows his children and wife are sound sleepers so he grabs his gun from his nightstand just in case a robber has entered his house. As he goes to investigate the disturbance, he realizes that it is not his wife nor his children in his house, but a stranger. He then realizes the intruder is armed.
Stop! Realize the difference between the two hypothetical situations I've described. In both instances, an armed robber has entered a law-abiding citizen's house. In one situation, the home-owner is defenseless (compared to a gun, your tae kwon do and baseball bat don't count) and in the other the playing field is equal (two people with guns). Now I agree that the probability that someone gets shot is higher in the situation in which both individuals have guns, but I also believe that in the situation in which only the robber has a gun, the robber gets away with the crime much more often. And who is to say the robber is not crazy enough to kill the home-owner and his family even if they are unarmed? If he is crazy enough to rob a house, he might be crazy enough to kill the people that live there.
This is why I think every citizen should be allowed to own a gun. If I had a family and an intruder with a gun came into my house, I should have the right to shoot him. Again, if I think someone is meaning to cause harm to my wife and children, I should have the right to incapacitate them. Otherwise, how am I supposed to protect my family? With the police? They don't live at my house. Do you know what would live at my house? A gun. I fully support the police coming to my house to make sure I didn't just murder someone who was harmless and happened to wander into my house, but I also fully support my right as a free person to own a gun and use it in the defense of myself and my family.
The other main argument that the Spanish and the Portuguese proposed concerned the misuse of guns such as in the Columbine massacre, VT shootings, etc. Though I agree that these happenings are absolutely horrible, I do not agree that they warrant a federal law that makes owning a gun illegal. If the federal government said that no-one could own a gun, would it have stopped these boys from massacring a bunch of their classmates? I don't think so. If they are crazy enough to murder a bunch of their classmates, they are crazy enough to bypass the federal law that says they cannot have a gun. Would the massacre have happened if we imposed federal law mandating that no-one can have guns? That is just speculation so I will refrain from offering an opinion on that certain question. I believe human life to be sacred. However, I believe that the misuse of guns in the US is not a sufficient argument to take away the right to own a gun.
During the course of my conversation with these seemingly more liberal Europeans, I became aware of an important and dangerous fact: I am ok with certain infringements on my freedom but not with others. It would become apparent when I said I live in a free country where we can own a gun if we want and they counter-argued that I don't live in a free country because we must be 21 to drink or because we must pay taxes to the government. This is a valid argument and it will only be resolved when I fully analyze all the laws that impinge on individual freedom, but that will take a few years I believe. For now, I would like to summarize my feelings about gun control.
I think the right to own a gun (or the general prominent weapon of the age) is important for each individual to protect their own life and assets. A gun may be used in improper ways, but the circumstances that result from its improper use do not validate its prohibition by the federal government. Tomorrow I hope to look into some statistics about gun control; hopefully I can find some numbers that are as easily comprehensible as those in the immigration post.
I thought health care was next but it turned out to be gun control. I'm definitely gonna get around to health care though, believe me. Hope you understand my reasoning here! I'd love some comments. Let's get some debate going!
You do a good job of covering the topic of the robber in an innocent family's household, but you are assuming that the robber is going to have a gun regardless of the law. I know... he's a law breaking SOB, but in a place where guns are more controlled there is also a lower chance of the robber actually being armed. In that case, the gunless homeowner and the gunless robber are on equal grounds AND the likelihood of death is lower.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to go all out and say that no one should be able to own guns because I think that the extremes are not the places we want to be. I can't see any good of allowing everyone and anyone to own a gun, but I also don't think telling everyone "no" to gun ownership is the way to go.
I think that people who want to own guns need to earn that right. They should prove that they are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens that want the gun for a reasonable purpose i.e. hunting or (I am okay with this) personal protection on your own property. I'm thinking more along the lines of background checks of people that are attempting to purchase guns (I don't know anything about regulations already in place or if there are even any so correct me if this has been approved/denied already) I don't believe that the mentally unstable or previous law breakers should have the same right to own a dangerous weapon as others. I'm usually not okay with discrimination, but I think in the case of a deadly weapon I'm going to allow it.
I know that there are exceptions to everything and some seemingly perfect citizen could just as well end up a pshyco whatever and a once criminal could end up changing his ways. If guns are restricted people are going to find ways to get them illegally. I just think that something that could be harmful to yourself and others should be regulated (or at least have harsher penalties if you mess around with them in the wrong way). We do it with drugs and alcohol, I don't see why we would let guns be any different.
Owen, I finally manned up and read your blog. I was a little scared at first, but it's not so bad. I always like hearing different opinions on controversial topics.
Would you agree that the robber entering an innocent family's house would be more likely to have a gun even if the law had made it illegal? Let's say they're both unarmed. The gunless homeowner and the gunless robber are NOT on equal grounds. One will have a knife, one will be bigger, one will be a boxer. I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that the robber will only attempt to rob the house if he feels he will have some edge over the homeowner. The beauty of letting people have guns is that they ARE in fact on equal ground. I believe that is why guns are commonly referred to as "the great equalizers."
DeleteI think that everyone in the US is born with the right to own a gun, which is different from your view of people having to earn that right. Unless someone has exhibited behavior indicative of a person who would misuse a firearm, they should be allowed to purchase a firearm. The wiki page on gun law in the US does a good job of explaining the restrictions we currently have on personal gun ownership. It lists several stipulations that you yourself mentioned. Convicts, fugitives, drug addicts, and mentally unstable people are all prohibited from owning a gun. Good! We can't have a bunch of armed convicts running around!
So gun ownership is regulated, similarly to drugs and alcohol.
Thanks for reading, Andrea. I know it's often tough to uncover a friends political opinions, especially if they are different from your own. So thanks for reading anyways!