Individual Gun Ownership— Yes or No?
Updated: May 20
Originally Published by Illumination Curated on Medium
The subject of guns and weapons is one of if not “The” controversial issues in the United States. For very valid reasons, gun ownership and its subject are not even discussion topics in other countries around the globe. That does not necessarily mean those in a liberated world or even those under dictatorship can’t access guns. But it is rather about whether there is a reason they should have one irrespective of its legal implication. For instance, a political rebel in a suppressed country has and will always have access to weapons. Or a gangster will always find a way to buy its way to access lethal agents, including guns.
So, the question is; should we wholly or partially ban public access to guns because they are lethal? Or should we pass a law against an underage person carrying a butcher knife to prevent parental harm? It is what you are thinking right now! Today, we hear more and more about cases where teenagers have killed their siblings or parents. Only recently, in Fremont, California, a teenager stabbed both his parents killing his mom and injuring the father. Based on today’s prevailing assumptions, banning knives for teenagers would solve the crime of passion or teenage brutality.
But that is not realistic!
Before we answer any question, first, we must agree that a Gun is only an Instrument.
An instrument is an object that enables a person to perform a task with more minor obstacles. Gun, just like any other device, is an agent of a task to erode and cut through other physical matters.
Every instrument has one primary purpose. The pen is designed to serve as the instrument of communication via presenting a set of visible characters that convey a particular message. However, there are additional side liabilities to every instrument’s intended use in the upswing. For example, the same pen initially designed to convey information, since it is a pointed object, can also be abused to stab a person in the back and be highly damaging if not lethal.
Gun ownership has a purpose, but its intended Instrumentality drives the Controversy.
We own things with a purpose, and if we don’t need them, we have no use for them, even if it is legal and legitimate. Yet still, when we desperately need them, we may also contemplate accessing them illegally. Gun ownership today is a perfect example of such a circumstance.
Legit use of the instrument or illegitimate contemplation behind owning a gun depends on the circumstances of that particular individual. Obviously, in a society where opportunity is equally available to everyone and every step of life as a social being is transparent, I would personally imagine the need for guns to be trivial. Only under such a scenario if one reaches out to a solution that would necessitate instruments that support violence. Then we must worry.
A person with a sound mind who respects the “Golden Rule” is never the initiator of violence, even if legitimized under political rhetoric or legal exceptions such as wars and patriotism. But those who retort an act of violence in response to violence in most circumstances do so; first, because the perpetrator feels that the power-wise has the advantage, they have the right to make the attack. Second, the subject of the affair feels vulnerable.
The driver of violence will not necessarily determine the type of instrument used to commit that violence. But instead, what will set the violence into action is the particular perception of fairness, opportunity, and equality showing that the distribution of power and accountability is indeed homogeneous within every society. Not everyone is inherently evil, and those who are will strive to harm irrespective of legal implications and statutes.
In Society, no one should feel Defenseless.
Gun owner has particular use for the Gun. That includes hunting, self-defense in a prejudiced social setting, and war for a cause. Self-defense is an innate human right that always triggers the want to own a gun. Perpetrators will always find a more aggressive instrument to help their ambition. But legal remedies will not reincarnate the dead if they are not allowed to defend themselves.
In the modernist world, constituencies have been by the ruling administrations made to believe that a 3rd party law enforcement must defend individuals on their behalf.
Owning a Gun is a choice, just like committing a Violence
The central argument around gun control is whether guns kill people or people with Guns kill people. It metaphorically resembles a chicken’ n ‘egg phenomenon as to which comes first.
It is my personal opinion that violence is violence irrespective of legal implications. And, any Instrument can be highly lethal regardless of how they operate. Yet, the lack of equal opportunity to defend oneself and have an option for everyone to compete and thrive kills people.
There is no perfect country for addressing Gun Violence, but those who respect individuals have lesser problems, lesser violence, lesser gun control, and even fewer guns.
More regulation invites more bureaucracy; bureaucracy is black and white concerning options and fairness. And rigid black and white may work okay under uniform societal circumstances. Nonetheless, it is subject to utter failure in a large and diverse society such as the United States. Because it is oblivious to the needs of those who don’t meet the bureaucratic criteria, they invite resentment, actions to resentment, violence, and Gun pursuing attitude.