Pew

America is facing another big debate on guns, nothing to unusual there but after the media coverage of yet another school shooting the world is also watching and wondering what the hell is going on. Opinions vary wildly on this subject and I am trying to understand why this seems such a touchy subject, why can’t America just follow suit with other western countries and remove firearms altogether?

Let me make clear though that I also like guns, I like shooting and I like violent movies and games. I am a privileged non-American and am giving my 2 cents on the subject because I can, not because I should.

I think there are three main points and reasons why anyone in America would want a gun;

1. self defence
2. 2^nd amendment rights
3. hunting or sporting reasons

Self defence

Self-defence would include anything from home-intrusions to protecting ones assets or valuables, but in pretty much all cases it would be to counter an opponent or attacker with a gun. This to me is the interesting part, if guns are removed from the equation entirely what would that look like? Let’s take the UK as an example; we also have to protect our homes, valuables and loved ones, but there are no guns involved. There are no guns in households for the reason of defence, armoured transports for valuables do not carry weapons and only very specialised police have firearms.

Yes death and murder still occurs in countries where guns are not readily available but the outcomes of certain altercations are less likely to result in the death of someone. If you get in a fight, argument, robbery or home defence situation and you have no firearms, it is unlikely for the result to include a fatal casualty. Add in a gun on one side or arguably worse, both sides and the result would very likely end up with at least one fatality.

No matter the size of the person, gender, disability or age, this basic point of view doesn’t change. An argument could be made to ‘level the playing field’ based on any of those reasons but as soon as you add in a firearm on one side, the other side may also have a weapon available, unbalancing the argument.

‘Only the bad guys would have guns if all guns are banned’ argument is also an interesting one. What determents who is bad and who is good would probably be defined by law. I would refer to any western country with strict gun laws on this one and surmise that most crime committed in those countries is done without the use of a firearm. The simple reason being that they are not readily available and secondly the penalty of carrying an unlicensed firearm has severe penalties attached to it.

However you look at it, I think everyone can agree that if there are no guns available, whatever bad situation would occur the result would less likely include the death of someone.

2^nd amendment

Holy jesusballs this is a minefield. So my very basic understanding of this is the following; in the 1800’s a law was passed that allows every citizen to carry a firearm, to defend themselves or their country;

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It allows for citizens to help defend against foreign invaders. This seems like a little out of whack though, who would or could possibly take on a country with the defence budget of the United States? The USA spends three times as much as the next big spender China, and seven times more than Russia. There is no argument to be made on this, America is biggest and best when it comes to sheer firepower and military might. So why also arm your citizens?

Additionally the 2^nd amendment also allows for citizens to rise up, through the power of a ‘well-regulated militia’ against the state itself in the case of the government going rogue and infringing on citizens’ rights. I’d like to understand how this would exactly work, what are the parameters for this to be triggered and what the government would use to defend themselves against this militia? I mean if it’s the army I think we have already established the odds are pretty much set.

This is a complicated thing to understand for an American let alone a non-American. Basically what it says is you are allowed to have a firearm to defend yourself which is basically the argument the pro-gun folk keep using; ‘because I can’ and ‘it’s my right’.

Hunting or sporting reasons

I mean this is not a difficult one to agree with. All over the world there are people that practise shooting as a sport; clay pigeon shooting, skeet, biathlon etc. There is real skill involved and in a safe environment this competitive activity is extremely enjoyable.

There are still many places in the world, where hunting is a big part of life either through hobby or necessity. Again it is difficult to argue against this and providing well-regulated this seems to be a totally viable reason to have a rifle, suitable for this task.

Conclusion

I think anyone can agree that if there would be no guns; crimes of any kind, altercations or disagreements are less likely to result in someone’s death. I also think it is fair to assume there is no need for citizens to defend against foreign invaders and it is pointless to fight the government in the extremely unlikely event of it going rogue. I cannot see anyone having a disagreement with having appropriate tools for hunting or sporting reasons, providing this is well regulated.

The question is, if that all seems so obvious why would anyone want to defend the right to bear arms? The fact that firearms are so readily available and contributing to more death than there would be if they were not readily available, are they really worth it?

The solution however is not that easy and this is not an issue I can see being easily resolved. This is not only a cultural but more and more so a political issue. Some Americans feel very strongly about their right to bear arms and will defend it to the bitter end, I mean, if that right would be amended or taken away, what’s next? Arguing the point seems to only contribute to a greater divide between the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ with extremists on both sides of the argument. Nobody likes extremists.

My (American) buddy DD said; ‘Most Americans want guns treated like cars: registration, training, testing, etc. It's the extremes on both sides that advocate the crazy "all or nothing" approaches.’ And I hope he is right, that seems like a very reasonable solution, no matter how long it may take to achieve that.

"You can count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have tried all the alternatives."