Yes. I am a proud advocate of gun control. The news of Christine Grimmie’s death today inspires me to write an argument in favor of gun control. This is one particular issue which distinctly differentiates Canada from the U.S. Without getting into the legal quagmire of guns laws, generally the sale of hand guns and semi-automatic weapons in Canada is outlawed, whereas it is permitted in the U.S. The U.S. federal assault weapons ban which was enacted in 1994 expired in 2004 and all attempts to renew the ban have proven unsuccessful.
I argue on the premises of reducing harm, the common good, a reasonable limitation to the rights of citizens in lieu of the common good, the unreasonable accessibility by potentially mentally unbalanced people despite society’s will and failure to make exclusions for such a group. Additionally, I argue on behalf of loved ones whose voice grows quieter with every passing day after the tragedy of a mass shooting. My last argument serves to defeat the notion that without access to hand guns and assault weapons, a citizen is left vulnerable to oppressive governmental regimes organized to strip one of his / her liberty.
A society has structure and can facilitate an individual’s wholesome aspiration to pursue and achieve happiness. This aspiration is undermined when confronted with the prospect that the person is not protected in public via public policy. If in every public theatre, one is presented with security measures reminding us of a “threat”, the prospect to attend subsequently grows dimmer thereby reducing the impact of such occasions to add value and affiliation-like health to our lives. Yes, it’s suggested that the banning of guns will not eradicate them nor prevent them from finding the hands of unbalanced individuals but I ask – whose fault is that? It is the fault of enforcement of course and the will of a society to apply sufficient resources for the success of a policy. Oh and of course the guns are flowing freely across the Mexican border, aren’t they? Yes indeed, and how robust are patrol measures leading to seizures? Can the taxpayer tolerate the cost of increased enforcement in the face of budgets with priorities hijacked by lobbyists? They are questions deserving of good answers instead of deference and indifference via an attitude suggesting that guns will always find their way into the wrong hands despite society’s effort otherwise.
The administrative measure of outlawing the sale of hand guns and semi-automatic weapons is a lot easier than conducting a nation-wide campaign in rooting out unbalanced individuals capable of committing mass murder. Teachers are busy teaching, adolescents restrict thoughts from parents, psychologists are seldom sought until it’s too late, and community groups have lost lustre as activity hubs. Time during formative years outside classrooms is now oftentimes spent in solace playing video games, watching 60 inch TV screens, or texting on cell phones blind to the world of wonder and isolated from the norms of socialization. Amidst such sustained periods of introversion, could mankind be churning out more monsters?
The living heirs to the deceased of murders and mass murders have had life loss as well that immeasurably prolongs year by year from the void. While some will endure better than others, these people’s strength to pursue justice can be stifled by sorrow. No advocate is immune from the potential of a policy and one ponders if this pain is cost worthy of a “right” deriving benefit. What is the value of a life lost? How has society lost from future contributions of the murdered? Is there a cultural loss in spirit when failing to address gun laws in the aftermath of a civil slaughter? Are there compounding forces at work when the loss of a loved one permeates and plagues a people?
I for one am contented to permit my country to restrict my “right to bear arms” for the cause of public safety. It gives me piece of mind. It gives me faith that there’s an earnest effort to foster a climate of security in the land that I live. It feeds my spirit to know that those with whom I associate can communicate freely without suspicion that the country does not have our back. I’m comforted that despite a constitution purporting equality there is acknowledgment that not all people have been equally blessed with a balanced mental and emotional state at all times.
Given decades of proven democracy and the new found transparency of scrutinizing politicians, do we now in the western world seriously acquiesce to the notion that we’ll vote a candidate in majority for office who would oppress our ideals toward liberty? In such unlikely event of oppression, would not our voluminous laws, power in numbers, and passion for justice suffice in extricating such an tyrant without the deployment of every hand gun from every bedroom across a nation? Are we no more mature as a civilization than times past when the only reactionary measure meant a shoot out on the board walk?
Our defense department carries weapons in the spirit of “defense”. Hunters have long guns to hunt. Law enforcement carries guns to serve and protect. These are worthy endeavors in which guns play roles as benefactors to society. In any other capacity, they are deadly tools and are in direct contravention to the life pursuing agenda of humanity.