This is another divisive issue in the United States. People have a good bit of emotion invested in either side of this issue…they are passionate about it, and for very good reason. A gun is the best tool defend oneself in a world with many bad people. Unfortunately, guns are also used by bad people to harm or take from others. So, the fundamental question is, who should be able to own these dangerous tools?
If you live in Europe or many other Asian countries, you will likely strongly believe that only government officials should own or possess guns. In democracies, there is a deep trust in the people of the government that they elect. In general, human beings WANT to trust the authority of the governments of this world because it makes them feel secure to do so. People want very badly to believe that government officials are 'good guys' who will die to protect the citizens from harm, for that is one of the common responsibilities of governments. The question is, are those assumptions - that government officials are generally good guys and only they are responsible enough to own or possess firearms - correct?
If one looks at history, I would argue the answer is no to the assumption that people who make up governments are somehow better than the citizens they rule over. History has shown time and time again that people who possess power typically use that power for wrongful or selfish purposes to some degree. I would ague that government officials in positions of power and authority are the people that the common citizen should be most concerned about due to the common abuse of power and authority. Therefore, if government officials will be allowed to own or possess firearms, then citizens should be too, and that was the position of the men who wrote the U.S. Constitution (see the Second Amendment).
People's views of guns generally depends on where they were raised and grew up, and the main determiner in the view of guns in that regard is whether you grew up in a rural or countryside setting, OR you grew up in a urban or city setting. If you grew up in a rural setting, a gun is a valuable tool which helps provide you protect your livestock; provide food; and is often a source of enjoyable recreation. If you grew up in a city, you are likely to view a gun in a very negative light as the tool criminals use to perpetrate crimes.
The key issue regarding gun control in the U.S. comes down to freedom. Will the people in governmental power - those who run the government which represents the power of the State - honor the founding Father's wisdom in saying it is best to allow law abiding citizens to own firearms and to form militias? Those who founded the Unites States choose to put in the nation's Constitutional Amendments the right of citizens to bear arms. They had a good reason for doing that since much of the motivation for the formation of the United States was fleeing the oppressive tyranny of the English government of that day. Human nature has not changed, nor will it change...people have been the same for thousands of years, and will continue on in the same nature.
This issue is improperly framed in the popular U.S. mass media and those in government with leftist ideology, as the legitimate use of guns (hunting and recreation) versus the illegitimate use of guns, namely to perpetrate crime and acts of murder. These two entities - the mass media personalities and those in government with leftist ideology - moved the goal post, so to speak, by changing the primary issue (the Constitutional right of citizens to bear arms to ward off government tyranny) to a non-primary one (the wrongful use of guns) which is easily manipulated by emotion. This improper emphasis is being used by some in positions of governmental power to seek to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to bear arms. Some in positions of governmental power are seeking to nullify the second amendment altogether and disarm law abiding citizens.
When something like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newton, CT, December 14, 2012 happens - the murder of 20 young children and 6 adults by an evil young man named Adam Lanza - and guns are used as the instrument of their death, people grieve and are rightfully angry and ask the question, “Why? Why did this happen? Why is my child dead?” The loss of a child is a horrible thing to experience, especially when the child is lost in this manner. The adults associated with the event rightfully look to place blame somewhere. Sadly, even if the person who killed the child(ren) is dead, it generally does not alleviate the desire for blame to be assessed and for something else to be done even if it will not bring back their children nor punish the person who perpetrated the act.
People on each side of the issue - those who believe guns should be easily available to all law abiding citizens versus those who believe the only people who should possess guns are government officials - I have observed, are generally unwilling to listen to those on the other side, just like most issues that divide people. People who are defending their side of the issue, I have observed, often are unreasonable in both their arguments as well as in their treatment of the person who they might be disagreeing with. Labeling other people instead of a reasoned discussion of the issues is the normal way of human communication. Unfortunately, demonizing those on the other side of the issue is also the normal way of human communication.
Generally, the two sides of gun control are represented by those who believe there should be very few, if any, restrictions on personal gun ownership – and those who believe that guns are the primary problem causing violence. Can the reader see that the two sides are in a basic disagreement before the arguments even start? They are not arguing apples and apples, but apples and oranges. Let us clarify this important truth. A balanced, apples-to-apples argument would be:
A. Those who see guns as merely a tool with many valid uses and believe that there should be little government control over personal firearm ownership and usage.
(This view is generally held by people who live in more rural areas and use guns for good, useful and valid purposes or know those who do);
Versus
B. Those who view guns as a very dangerous tool with few valid uses – and often used wrongly - and would like a good deal of government control - many laws, rules and restrictions - over private citizen gun ownership and usage.
(This view is generally held by urban people in cities who do not own guns nor do they know people who use guns for good, useful or valid purposes).
As you can see, how the gun is used is not part of that balanced issue. Why? Because guns don’t cause violence, people do. Guns are a tool that can be used by people responsibility or irresponsibly - for good or for evil.
This issue is unbalanced due to the two perspectives that dominate it. Instead of a debate on gun ownership rights, it is a disagreement between those who believe that if ANYONE is allowed to own or carry a gun, then ALL COMPETENT GOOD PEOPLE ought to be able to own or carry guns; VERSUS those who believe guns are the cause of violence or are so dangerous in-and-of themselves that they ought to be heavily regulated. To frame the argument another way – those who believe people ought to be able to own and control a tool, against those who believe the tool is the problem.
Just recently, there was an important discussion on a major news network with the president of the U.S. The phrase most often used by the president to frame the debate or discussion is “gun violence”. This phrase is often used by those who generally are against private citizens having more freedom regarding gun ownership and usage.
The phrase, “gun violence” is at best misleading and at worst, erroneous, confusing, biased and obscures clear thinking. The reason they use the phrase "gun violence" is often because they hold leftist ideology which includes the view that people are basically good. If that is true (and it is not), then or course people cannot be the problem, it must be the tool, so lets focus on the tool.
The phrase supports those on the side of the issue that believe that guns are evil not people. As said above, people that believe this will often focus on the tool instead of the person. You will hear them talk about the ‘bullets slamming into innocent people’ or other such language. The purpose of focusing on the tool or the effects of its USAGE instead of on the person who used the tool to perpetrate violence, is because those who take that side of the issue often have no real/clear actions to solve the human problem of violence (they are moral relativists), and thus they focus on some action they can take – which is to take the tool away from people or restrict the tool's availability.
Again, the simple truth is that guns are not violent, people are. Or said another way, guns don’t cause or initiate violence, rather people do.
If ‘gun violence’ is an accurate way to represent human violence, then ‘fist violence’ and ‘knife violence’ and other such tools used by violent people to harm others should regularly be spoken about as well, and yet they are not. In fact, there is much more ‘fist violence’ happening on a daily basis than gun violence. It just so happens that fists are not as effective in harming people as guns.
The point is that VIOLENCE and some people's predisposition
to use violence should be the focus and it should be a
discussion separate from the tools used to perpetrate the
violence. To conflate or lump the two together just
causes more confusion.
In other words, to have separate discussions about “fist violence” and “gun violence” and “knife violence” etc. would be irrational, since fists and guns and knives don’t harm people by themselves since they are merely tools.
Dear reader, tools are not violent, people are. However, most people don't want to admit that fact because they don't like where that will lead them as moral relativists. In other words, moral relativists don't have a way to process the fact that human nature universally has a problem that needs to be addressed - a predisposition to use violence or the threat of violence to get our way.
A gun or a fist or a knife NEVER just jump up by themselves with the intent to harm a human being. There is ALWAYS a person who picked up the tool with the intent to harm another person.
To deny this is irrational and sadly proves that there are bigger problems than even violence, namely people refusing to acknowledge what is true. One very popular belief of relativists is that human beings are basically good. Yet, from the perspective of the standard of the best ethic delivered to humanity, we are clearly not good.
Furthermore, it seems reasonable to conclude that many in positions of power and influence want to redirect the discussion away from the truth and towards a falsehood which will justify taking arms away from law abiding citizens. If guns are the problem, then to solve the problem, we just take the guns away, they reason. By doing this, they avoid the hard truth of acknowledging that immoral people are the problem (a problem government cannot solve); and they avoid the hard task of going after the bad people (a concept distasteful to relativists who believe that people are basically good and it is almost always someone else's fault for an individuals wrong or immoral choices).
So, how come ‘fist violence’ or ‘knife violence’ are phrases that are never heard? Because those who control the mass media are generally against gun ownership and want to avoid the simple truth that people are the cause of violence, not guns. Or because those in the mass media who are for responsible gun ownership get caught up in the emotional arguments of their opponents; allow their opponents to frame the discussion; or can’t articulate the truth clearly or are unwilling to do so.
If we can’t properly identify a problem, then we will never be able to solve it. What is behind the gun/tool? A person willing or eager to use violence to get his/her way. What is behind their act(s) of violence? Loveless-ness empowered by selfishness, self-pride or fear - the basic ugly flaws of we human beings, are the problem.
In general, those who are against private gun ownership have a belief that people are essentially good, and this belief runs counter to reality and the fact of violent people harming or killing other people. They really don’t want to face the fact that people have darkness and evil in them and are the cause of violence, because that is a contradiction to their general belief that human beings are basically good...and by extension, that they do not have darkness in them, for their self-pride will not allow that. So, when they are faced with a young man murdering children (The Sandy Hook example above), they focus on the tool used to avoid the truth about the perpetrator. They will also find all kinds of excuses and justifications based on psychological beliefs, as to why the person who murdered those children ‘was mentally ill’ and thus not really at fault.
It was announced that the federal government is planning to spend one-half a billion dollars on “mental health” services to try and prevent violence like occurred at Newton CT. That is largely a waste of resources, because the government doesn’t have the answers or resources to solve the fundamental problem of removing or overcoming evil in people…money cannot solve that, nor can the ineffective psychological philosophies that the ‘mental health professionals’ rely on and employ in their work. In fact, working from a wrong belief that people are essentially good – which almost all of the psychological doctrines which ‘mental health’ professionals believe - will undercut any effectiveness for a solution.
The concept of ‘mental illness’ is grounded in a belief that people are basically good, and only some ‘illness’ causes them to act badly. So, it is the ‘illnesses’ fault, not the person’s fault…ANYTHING to avoid the simple truth that people are inherently evil and need something to overcome that, because that points to a place where they don’t want to go…namely, spiritual or metaphysical truth and ultimate accountability. Those who are set in their self-pride or fear or selfishness simply will NOT let go of their essential belief that people are basically good, because if they did, they would have to use the mind they were given to pursue that, and that pursuit, if done well, WILL LEAD to concepts like “guilt”, “punishment”, “accountability” or ultimate justice. These concepts are incredibly unpopular with a people who have turned away from the simple moral truths of human existence given by the Creator and have placed themselves in a cage of self-pride and fear and selfishness.
Hand guns primary purpose is to be used against other people, whether in justified self-defense or in wrongful violence. They cannot be reasonably argued to be needed for hunting. Nor would a hand gun be effective in deterring a tyrannical government. Therefore, hand guns should have been strictly regulated from the beginning of a nation’s forming, but sadly, they have not been in the U.S. so the reality is they are widely and generally available to anyone who wants one. Given this situation, what should be done?
Obviously the primary solution to hand guns being used for wrong purposes is to aggressively prevent them from being acquired by, and to take them away from, people who misuse them to perpetrate crime or immoral activity.
The basic problem is that there are many people who will use a gun to commit crimes and immoral activity. Therefore, the best solution should focus on taking guns away from these people and keeping these people from getting guns. Buying, selling and trading rules need to be in place (like background checks) to help accomplish that.
One thing is for absolutely certain - restricting the access to guns and gun ownership for law abiding citizens - is the WRONG approach; an approach which makes no sense. And yet, just about every time a murderer uses a gun to murder, the people in government positions of power call for gun restrictions for EVERYONE, not just the bad guys who are perpetrating the crimes! This is not rational and can only reasonably be explained by the fear of the people in power.
Pandora’s box has been opened, so to speak. Guns – dangerous tools that should only be in the hands of responsible, good people – are available to all people. Therefore – while it would be better if only the good people had access to guns – it is too late for that so it would be irrational to take the tools away from the good people knowing the bad will possess and use them. This saying is true -If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
So, given these facts, here are some reasonable solutions:
…are largely worthless and a terrible waste of resources.
This issue can never be solved without solving the basic problem of people controlled by fear and its child hatred and thus loveless-ness. Since the people of the U.S. have turned away from the Resource that can solve evil and hatred, they are left with controlling the tool often used to accomplish their hatred. In other words, more and more people will be acting out their fear and hatred using violence, and if a gun is available to them, they will use it.
If human beings were in fact basically good, there would be a lot less violence and guns would be used properly for only useful and good purposes. Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in. Therefore, it is a true statement that if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. And if only those with a propensity to use violence have guns, then what do you think will be the result? On what basis would you call making sure law abiding citizens have access to weapons to protect themselves, unreasonable?
Read the rest of this web site to find the solution to those problems, because laws or political philosophies or governments or ideologies or policies or religion or mental health philosophies are not going to solve that problem.
The issue of gun control is a relatively minor issue regarding human life. In other words, the vast majority of people on the earth will not have direct encounters with people using guns against them. Please see the rest of this web site to see where sound reason leads to the most important issues of human life like the purpose of life, what does a human life lived rightly look like, how am I supposed to live my life, does God exist and if he does, what is He like and what does He want of me, and what is true love and how can I live a life characterized by true love? What will become of me/my soul when my body dies? Do I have the ability to set my after death destiny? Only faith in the Right Leader will solve those problems.