R: Say Farewell to Arms

The issue of gun control is a perennial discussion in American politics. Each time there is a tragic mass shooting in America, some call to remove the instruments of those mass shootings, and others brand those calls as bad faith, politically opportunistic capitalizations on people’s deaths. It would seem that removing all guns from the street, or at least some of the most dangerous, would be an effective way to prevent these deaths. As an average citizen living in this country under ideal circumstances, it would seem the only reasonable use for a firearm is to hunt, or for personal defense in the home. Why then can you, with little obstacle, buy an easily concealed, high-capacity firearm that can shoot through a wall and kill someone on the other side?

Opponents of gun control will often point to the second amendment which states, “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.” They will point to the many examples of totalitarian regimes methodically disarming their citizenry before exerting control. During the Russian civil war, citizens were allowed to possess a variety of small arms and bladed weapons. In the Declaration of the Rights of Working and Exploited People written in January 1918, the government lauded the importance of “arm[ing] the working people.” Shortly after the war ended, however, the Soviets required the relinquishment of all firearms, swords, bayonets, etc. Gun control continued in some form and many argue allowed for the authoritarian takeover of the Soviet Union. Guns, they argue, are the most effective defense against tyranny. The Black Panthers took a similar position, challenging gun control to gain civil rights for black Americans. Today, many Native Americans take the same position— looking with a skeptical eye at the government’s attempt to disarm them. 

Even so, the issue of gun violence in America begs our attention. In this debate, we must discuss not only measures to regulate guns but also measures to protect the mentally ill who may harm themselves with guns. These often come in the form of “red flag” laws. For those in the affirmative position, unsupported reliance on the second amendment should be avoided. In other words, speakers should not address that we have a right to bear arms and instead address why we have such a right (or should). Other questions that may arise are, what is the purpose of guns? Even if we have the concern of tyranny, can we justify the immense loss of life that widespread gun use causes? And finally, are all guns created equal?