Recently, I came across an article regarding a seventeen-year-old shooting fifteen people in Germany and then killing himself. Most of the killings took place at or near the school that he had graduated from last year. This can be seen from the fact that of the fifteen killed, nine students and three teachers and a passer-by outside the building were shot in or near the school. The death toll from this incident almost matched that of the worst German school shooting, in which the death toll was sixteen people. This shooting rampage, along with the recent shooting tragedy in the American state of Alabama, has raised questions about the issue of gun control. The German teen probably got hold of the pistol that he used from his father’s collection of sixteen guns and the gunman in Alabama had bought his guns. This simply means that a ban on possessing guns would have prevented these shooting tragedies. However, there is no ban on the possession of guns in either Germany or America. Thus, I feel that the possession of guns should be banned everywhere.
Firstly, as seen from the shooting rampages, the guns in the possession of the wrong people can lead to the loss of innocent lives. We must understand the position of power that a person comes into when he or she holds a weapon. The weapon renders anyone without arms as harmless and susceptible. Due to this, weapons also frighten most people as they know that an armed person can take lives or seriously injure people. This also puts the armed person in a position of power. This power has been identified by past leaders as well when Vladimir Lenin said, “One man can control hundred without one.” This power is often wanted by a people who think that they are in a position of little influence and want to achieve their aims. This aim could be taking revenge for unfair treatment or just to get something. So, if the armed person falls under the group of wrong people, the situation becomes potentially life-threatening. When I refer to “wrong people”, the reference is being made to people who want to achieve their unethical or immoral objectives through any means. Such objectives usually involve hurting others or allowing the armed person to get something that he or she does not deserve. It should also be noted that these wrong people can often be hard to identify and could be anyone altogether as a person’s personality can change any time. For example, the earlier mentioned gunman in Alabama, Michael McLendon, was described as a “nice and polite kid” by those who knew him. However, he held grudges against some people who he felt had treated his mother and him unfairly. Thus, he tried to attain a position of power by using a gun in order to exact his revenge on them. Therefore, it is the safest choice in the interest of fellow humans that the possession of guns by ordinary citizens be banned.
Secondly, humans are emotional beings, who should not be in possession of guns. It is not rare to see people flying into a rage over trivial issues and hurling obscenities. At other times, one gets to see people breaking down and weeping over bad news or after being emotionally hurt. We, humans, always express our emotions, whether we are happy or furious or sad. These emotions are part of our lives but when we have a gun or any other weapon and are experiencing extreme emotions, we can be murderers on the loose. Extreme emotions, like when we are boiling with rage, are very often uncontrollable. Thus, when we experience such emotions, we cannot think clearly, let alone control our actions. This can and sometimes even does results in us using weapons as a means to vent our emotions, which in turn can cause deaths. The recent shootings by the seventeen-year-old German and Michael McLendon (in Alabama) are just two examples of such behaviour possibly triggered by emotions. Therefore, the possession of guns by ordinary citizens should be banned.
Now, the question may arise, “Why ban only guns and not other weapons?” The reason is rather simple. Practically, the only other weapon that ordinary citizens currently are allowed to possess is a knife. Knives are needed for daily purposes, like cutting fruits and vegetables, spreading butter, cutting cakes. So, they cannot be banned. However, this is not the case for guns. Guns are lethal weapons that cannot serve any daily. They can, at the very best, be used for self defence.
This brings me to the argument in support of ordinary citizens possessing guns. This group of people say that the possession of guns is a form of self-defence. As stated in the book “Ayn Rand Answers”, denying anyone the right to have a means to protect one’s life is absurd when he or she has a right to his or her life. In other words, it is necessary for anyone to have a right to own a firearm (gun) as a form of self defence as he or she has a right to his or her life. However, it must be noted that firearms are not the only form of self-defence. By trying to help clamp down on crimes as a society and voting for people who are willing to do this, we are defending ourselves. Otherwise, allowing ordinary citizens to possess guns, we might and have caused criminals to arise who shoot for personal reasons instead of reasons like stealing. Examples of such criminals would be the gunmen from Germany and Alabama.
Thus far, it can be seen that banning ordinary citizens from possessing guns, along with clamping down on crimes, could effectively prevent shooting tragedies like those in Germany and Alabama while keeping citizens safe. Therefore, it is a clear “No” from me on ordinary citizens possessing guns!
0 comments:
Post a Comment