The Folly of an Old Argument

In the wake of the tragic events in Colorado, some seek to take the opportunity to rehash an old argument – the elimination or reduction of weapons in the United States.  Social and political liberals feel that the only way to reduce such happenings is to simply eliminate the ability to purchase advanced weaponry.  Some go so far as to ban the sale of any weapon.  While it is true that these activists are capitalizing on a horrific event that is not what concerns me.  The truth is that draconian measures against weapons are not effective and indeed, only hurt the innocent and law-abiders.   

For many international observers, Americans’ obsession with and adherence to gun rights is perplexing at best, unbelievable at worst.  The nature of U.S. development depended upon the idea of the “citizen soldier.”  From the earliest days of the colonies until well into the 19^th-century, soldiers were as likely to report for duty with their own rifle or other weapon then depend on a government issued firearm.  Until the late 19^th-century, Americans were still exploring unchartered territory and weapons, be they handguns or rifles, were essential for defense.  The traditions of hunting and self-defense are the basic reason why the majority of Americans agree with gun ownership of one type or another.  It is the reason why they resist demands to give up their weapons and why some internationally find themselves philosophically against what some represent. 

In the worst crime-laden cities (Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago and Detroit), city leaders passed some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.  Law-abiding citizens, fearful of their lives and when accosted, had little with which to fight back, had no options but belated phone calls to police long after the perpetrators fled.  City leaders promised that gun restrictions would ebb the amount of violence but crime rates remained (remain) high and indeed, the only people who are impacted by the laws are legitimate citizens.  Those using weapons for crimes do not register or purchase weapons legally.  Therefore, their access to firearms remained unfettered and conditions continued to deteriorate and proved increasingly dangerous for the average law-abiding citizen.  In the last two years, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Second Amendment to the Constitution yet, the recent events in Colorado have brought the issues back to the fore.

Personally, I think that certain military grade weapons have no business in civilian hands but I have an unwavering belief that we are allowed by the Constitution to have individual firearms.  The problem with eliminating some is that it quickly leads to the elimination of all firearms.  Some states allow for concealed handgun licenses and it would have been interesting if someone in that theater had had a pistol.  On a news talk show, I heard an activist say that such a scenario would have created a worse blood bath.  Her paradigm suggests that any positive reason of a firearm destroys her entire argument against them.  The Aurora, Colorado theater was already a blood bath – unfortunately, it was a one-sided affair.  That is the future of activists’ arguments. 

Gun ownership in the U.S. has always been accompanied by training and responsibility as well as instruction on the history of weapons in the U.S.  It is one reason why so many gun advocates are well familiar with the Second Amendment and the country’s history in relation to weapons.  As for the demented man in Colorado, no society can prevent or anticipate previously undocumented insanity and to burden society with such a task shows the folly of anti-gun activists’ point of view.  The best that Americans can do is being prepared when the unpredictable happens.