An Analysis of Reasons for Allowing and Denying Gun Ownership
I always wondered why some countries allow citizens to own guns, while other countries do not allow gun ownership. So, I did a lot of investigating on all the reasons for and against gun ownership to help determine which policy is more logical.
First, I will list and discuss each reason for allowing gun ownership.
- The most fundamental reason to allow gun ownership is for protection. Whether it is for self defense, protecting friends and family, or protecting your property, the most common reason to own a gun is because of protection. Since the police can not protect everyone and every piece of property all of the time, it is foremost the responsibility of individuals to protect their interests. Furthermore, criminals fear gun owners. When criminals do not know if their potential victims can defend themselves from an attack, it provides an added security to innocent civilians.
- Another reason for gun ownership is for national defense. An invading military will have a much more difficult time controlling and holding a country that has its citizens armed. For instance, during World War II, Germany would not have easily invaded their neighboring countries if the local populations were allowed to own guns. Consider that many armed individuals in Iraq are trying to resist the occupying forces of the United States of America. Whether these people are liberators, insurgents, or terrorists is only a matter of point of view. Whatever the case may be, most invading militaries would think twice before invading or occupying an armed civilian population.
- Another reason for gun ownership is protection of an individual’s rights and freedoms from their own government. Before the holocaust, Germany made gun ownership illegal and removed many, if not most, guns from the population. As a result, the holocaust had little resistance from the local population. Currently, dozens of countries throughout the world impose harsh and immoral governing on their own citizens. These would be much more unlikely if their citizens were allowed gun ownership.
- The law allows individuals the right to bear arms. Just because the law allows the right of gun ownership, this does not justify this right.
- Gun ownership is macho. In my opinion, it is not logical to own a gun solely for the purpose of one’s ego.
- Guns are needed for hunting. Whether hunting for sport or food, I think most of civilization has moved beyond the need to use guns to kill animals. Even though I think hunting is becoming less popular and necessary, there are still people who survive from hunting. Therefore, gun ownership is still needed for hunting.
- Gun ownership for investment or entertainment. Whether owning guns for target practice, hobby, historical collection, or investment, none of these reasons are logically required.
- Ban guns and only criminals will own guns. This is circular logical that is not logical for the promotion of gun ownership. The purpose for allowing guns should stand on its’ own, whether or not people will submit to gun restrictions or gun control is another matter.
- Guns are capable of killing or injuring a person or property. This is basically the argument that "guns kill people" when in reality "people kill people". People don’t need a gun to kill people, since there are many other dangerous objects in the world that are not banned and cannot be banned. I do not see a logical reason for banning guns just because they can be dangerous.
- Guns make killing or injuring a person or property very easy. Whether firearms make it very easy for accidental or intentional gun murders, gun injuries, gun suicides, or gun damages does not matter. A tool that makes it easier to do something is still just a tool. There are plenty of other tools that are equally easy to kill or injury a person or property, and they are not banned.
- The only purpose for firearms is to kill. The previous list above has several other purposes for firearms that contradict this reason for banning guns. In summary, a good defense is sometimes a good offense.
- The law denies individuals the right to bear arms. Just because the law denies the right for gun ownership, this does not justify denying this right.
- Guns are feared. Almost everyone fears guns to a certain extent because of their power. However, fear is an emotion. The logical decision for or against guns should be based on logic and not emotions. It is true that firearms are dangerous; therefore, they must be treated with care and respect.
- Stop public shootings. Every so often, there is a public shooting where unarmed civilians are injured or killed. Banning guns would definitely decrease the number of these shootings, but it would not eliminate them. Other forms of public violence would still exist too.
- Coaxing violence in children. Violence is an everyday part of nature. Children will learn it at a very early age no matter what the law is.
I think with this detailed analysis of all the reasons for and against gun ownership, I have proved that there are much more convincing reasons to allow gun ownership than to ban firearms. In other words, the usefulness of firearms outweighs their dangers.
by Phil for Humanity
on 12/09/2007