In the world of current events, arguments and debate about gun control find themselves at the forefront of much discussion. When looking at the core argument, you find the issue is freedom versus safety. But what exactly are the specific arguments? What should the goal of discussion be? While it may be easy to pick a side and believe that you are right, it is important to try and understand the multiple perspectives of this argument and rationalize their respective point of views. Like many topics in politics, there are rarely absolutes, and I implore you as the reader to take that into consideration. Before diving into the specific arguments, it is imperative that I mention that both sides of this argument wish for the best possible outcome. This is not simply a debate of evil vs non-evil.
In a blog written by Tom Stevenson, the English native explains his take on America’s situation. As an “outsider” he simply does not understand why Americans continue to disregard stricter gun control. He states that America’s obsession with guns creates more opportunity for “bad actors and the mentally ill” to gain access and commit atrocious crimes of mass murder and ultimately leading to the death of thousands of innocent lives. While this may be true, I believe that this level of analysis is misleading and incomplete. I believe that an individual’s right to protect themself is a fundamental right of the United States and the prevalence of guns that currently are being used by bad actors make their legality more legitimate than ever before.
In the United States, guns are equipped to police officers to protect citizens, by citizens who wish to provide protection for themselves, citizens who wish to use them for sport, and by criminals. In order to get a gun in today’s society, US residents must be over the age of 18 (21 for handguns), have not been suspected of a criminal charge that may result in a one year sentence, have not been convicted of domestic violence, and in some states have various licenses. On top of these restrictions, background checks are also given to prevent those who are mentally ill from obtaining a firearm. According to business.time.com, “899,099 firearm purchases have been denied by the FBI between November 30, 1998 (when the FBI began processing background checks) and December 31, 2011. Of those, 7,879 were denied because of issues relating to the would-be purchaser’s mental health” The FBI and other American agencies have since increased their efforts. All of this information shows that guns are not as easy to obtain as most people think. There is a process to obtaining a gun that requires extensive checks on one’s record and mental health.
However Stevenson’s argument still stands. Wouldn’t the United States as a whole avoid this situation with an all-out ban? The truth is not necessarily. Terrorism and crime is non-unique. People will still end up exchanging weapons with those that would harm the United States. In fact, a large amount of weapons are imported from countries like Brazil and Colombia. If the government truly wanted to prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands, then they should tighten on regulations. The U.S. government should alter trade laws and enforce stricter importation enforcement and not the rights of the American people. At the end of the day, personal autonomy is a fundamental right of America, and the freedom to protect oneself is a derivation of that right.
The Current State of the Second Amendment 