After every deadly shooting there are calls for more gun
regulations. “Guns kill people,” they say. “Get rid of guns.” Those who
disagree quote the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms. While it is certainly
true that we have the right to bear arms (and I’m totally in favor of
protecting our Second Amendment rights), there is also another argument that we
need to be making:
Guns are good.
How so?
Consider a world without any guns at all. There will always
be those who try to take from others and hurt them. In a world without guns,
whoever has more physical strength will win in any confrontation. Women,
children, the elderly – all are at risk and need someone strong to protect
them. If you aren't physically strong, you are vulnerable. If a confrontation
occurs, you had better hope there is someone on your side who has some serious
muscle or you could get hurt or killed.
On the other hand, in a world with guns, a young woman or an
elderly man or a teenager with a gun can protect themselves. The good thing
about guns is that they level the playing field so that brute force can't
always win.
You see, there will always be something that can be used to
hurt or kill others. Knives, chains, baseball bats, even bare hands can be
weapons. The advantage that a gun gives is the ability to kill at a distance
rather than needing to use brute force up close. No physical strength is needed
to kill with a gun.
Does this give an advantage to criminals? Yes, it can in
some cases. But it gives the same abilities to those in danger. A 250 lb. man
vs. a 100 lb. teen girl is a really uneven match without guns, but give guns to
both and the man's advantage disappears. The girl now has a fighting chance
where she would not have without a gun. She is now just as able to come out
on top as he is. Thus, guns protect those without superior strength from being
always vulnerable to those who would harm them.
Obviously, there are differences in how well people can use guns,
but this is simply a matter of mastering a simple skill, not an inherent
difference in capability. When a potential victim has a gun and knows how to
use it properly, they can become the physical equal of their attacker. In some
cases, they may have superior force (either due to superior firepower or
superior skill). Thus, those who were once vulnerable to those stronger than
themselves are now empowered to protect themselves and those they love – all due
to being armed.
The problem isn’t that we have too many guns. The problem is
that there are too few in the hands of good people. If only the criminals have
guns, then they can run wild at will knowing that no one can stop them. They
know their intended targets cannot fight back. In a place where guns are
carried by many of the citizens, a criminal must think long and hard before trying
to harm someone. And if he tries anything, there will likely be someone there
to stop him.
Most (if not all) of the deadly shooting sprees in the last
several years bear this out – they occurred in gun-free zones. Schools, colleges, a
theater – all places where the criminals know no one will be armed. Making it
against the law to have guns in those places didn’t prevent violence. It
invited it. The people inside gun-free zones are like sitting ducks. They might
as well label such gun-free zones as “kill zones.” All it takes is one crazy
with a gun to cause horrific violence and loss of life in such places because unarmed
people are vulnerable to superior force.
The answer to violence isn't to get rid of guns. If we could
push a button and make all guns and the ability to manufacture them magically disappear
from the planet, it would be a bad idea. That would just return us to the Dark
Ages when any strong man could take whatever he wanted from the weak. The real answer
is to train good people to use guns properly. Then, they can defend themselves
and those who are threatened.
The world is a better place with guns...IF good
people will wield them properly.
Linked up with WLWW and NOBH.
