The statement,
an armed society is a polite society, is more true than many people realize.
There
is a general perception in society, especially in the larger cities, that
anyone who supports the right to own a gun is an inbred, trigger-happy
psychopath. In most cases this couldn't be further in the truth. Each individual
has the right to protect themselves and no one should be able to take that
away.
When
I lived in Arizona, owning at least a handgun was very accepted. It was
not uncommon to see a gun rack on the back of someone's truck and even
self proclaimed pacifists owned some sort of gun. Yet I never felt safer
walking the streets than when I lived there. I have seldom met such genuinely
nice, polite, respectful people.
In
the city of Chicago, it is illegal to own a handgun. This is supposed
to cut down on crime. But what happens if Im living alone and my income
demands that I live in a more crime filled (but also more affordable) area?
Shouldn't it be my choice to protect myself in the event of a break in
or assault? The average criminal knows where to find a weapon, legal or
not. Law abiding citizens should not be forced into a position where they
must choose between their own safety and obeying the law.
The
other night, my boyfriend and I were walking through Wicker Park. It was
late and we passed what was obviously a gang kid who had marked us. He
whistled down the street to his friends (who were not in our field of vision).
As I turned and looked, I noticed he was following very closely behind
us. Fortunately, a cab drove by at that moment. We hailed the cab and took
it home. We talked about the incident later. We both agreed that we felt
our safety was jeopardized by handguns being illegal. While my boyfriend
is of formidable size and strength, he is also a law-abiding citizen. His
ability to defend himself doesnt make a difference against an armed criminal.
Making guns illegal only hurts those that obey the law.
In
fact, a study done by two University of Chicago students (Lott, John R.
jr and Mustard, David B. usenet:grouptalk.politics.gun) showed that not
only do states with right to carry laws not have a higher crime rate, but
they actually have a lower crime rate than states with handgun bans.
By
the FBI's own statistics (http://www.nraila.org) right to carry states
have 26% less violent crime, 20% less homicide and 39% less robbery. While
this in and of itself does not prove a cause and effect relationship
it does make one question if there is sufficient evidence to support overturning
the second amendment because of high crime rates in urban areas.
Since
the tragedy at Columbine, guns have especially been getting a lot of scrutiny.
"protect our children"has long been the battle cry of every political lobbying
group. From anti- abortion to socialized healthcare to gun control,
"do it for the children" is the heartstring tactic of choice. The point
that has been neglected, however, is that supplying children with weapons
is a criminal act. The contrast between the law-abiding citizen who owns
a weapon for their own protection and the individual who illegally supplies
children with artillery is glaringly obvious. Can you say that a person
capable of murder would be stopped by the fact that they have to buy their
weapons on the black market rather than a gun and ammunition store? History
has proven that prohibition doesnt work. Consider the popularity of the
speakeasy in the 1920s. Heroin is illegal but people still overdose. Prostitution
is illegal; yet cities still abound with streetwalkers, escort services
and massage parlors. Prohibition is the black markets best friend.
Furthermore,
it has never been proven that gun permit holders are any less law abiding.
In fact,among states with right to carry laws, the percentage of guns revoked
for any reason is less than 1%. (http://www.nraila.org)
You
can outlaw every handgun, rifle and automatic weapon, but you cant stop
them from being smuggled. And you can never stop violent crime unless you
isolate the cause. How often have you seen a child with a parent who obviously
wanted to be anywhere but with their own kid? Who wished they were doing
anything but interacting with them, wishing that the television could be
more than a babysitter, wanting the school to play parent? With such a
mentality, no wonder children can have a gun without their parent knowing
about it. And while no parent can know everything their kid does all the
time, a parent involved in their child's life is bound to notice the very
early signs of teen violence.
Rather than banning guns, we need stronger parental neglect laws.
If parents had far greater liability for their children's' actions, perhaps
they might be a little more interested in knowing if their children are
addicted to drugs, owning guns or running around with gangs.
We
are told that money should be taken from our paychecks to build up the
defense budget. We regularly see policemen, military personnel and government
agents armed. We are told that we should spend our tax money to be protected
with no guarantee that protection will be available when needed. And yet
told that we should be denied the right to protect ourselves "for the greater
good."The hypocrisy of a government that wants to arm itself to the teeth
yet leave its very own citizens helpless is too frightening and too much
of a threat to personal liberties to be allowed.
Furthermore,
though our founding fathers also were concerned with owning guns for hunting
purposes, they recognized second amendment rights as a final protection
against a fascist government. Disarming citizens is the last step before
martial law. Accordingly, citizens being allowed to own guns are a necessary
symbol of freedom. Remember Tiannemen Square? It is only in incredibly
brutal fascist governments that the police have guns but the citizens are
denied them. While it is true, relatively free countries such as England
may have banned handguns but that's across the board. The police don't
carry them either.
I
have never owned a gun. I don't even know how to shoot one. But its my
second amendment right to have one. Furthermore, its my choice if I have
one or not. Nobody has the right to decide for me what weapon I deem necessary
for my own protection, self-defense and security.