Gun control a wasted argument
Anna Barbour
Get a Life
There are many issues in modern society that are interesting to debate. Issues that have as many pro arguments as con arguments so that it's impossible to resolve them unless you destroy your opposition. Wiping out the opposition is not very democratic though, so we decide to discuss and discuss, discussing generation after generation until hopefully the problem resolves itself.
Sadly, unsuspecting individuals will continue to debate some issues even after they have resolved themselves. Gun control is one such issue that is over and done with yet still debated.
People argue whether every citizen has the right to his or her personal firearm as well as the required registering and licensing time, but with the dawning of the 21st century everybody should now realize the issue of gun control is moot; this non-issue of gun control arose awhile ago because everybody had access to rapid-fire weaponry and needed a personal firearm (PFA).
It's difficult for me, an average, mild-mannered citizen to understand why my countrymen are not wanting to tote a pistol around when they go out. No doubt criminals have some automatic weaponry upon their persons to shoot upstanding citizens. Why should we good Americans not have the same power?
My ancestors would have been able to have as many rifles as they desired if they had actually been living here two centuries ago. In fact, as you may well know, the right to bear arms is right there in amendment two of the Bill of Rights. Regardless of these truths though, gun control is simply impossible to maintain. Why? Because the necessity of protecting oneself negates theoretical argumentation.
Owning a PFA is not only a right but also a duty. For example, as an earlier Observer letter so nicely put it: how can you possibly protect your significant other from evildoers in Chicago if you are not packing heat? I mean, my gosh, if I am a small defenseless woman I think I would feel much safer if my cute boyfriend had a little revolver right there in his pocket, ready for action. Especially for all the times my significant other and I visit Cabrini Green, one of us had better have a means of protection.
Incidentally, however, the female in the relationship should probably be the one to pack the protection as the FBI has issued statistics upon the fact that a firearm is used in most cases of domestic abuse and murder committed against women. Thus, when my rich boyfriend and I walk down the dark, blind alleyways, I should probably be the one to have the firearm since not only is there danger from the criminal but quite possibly also from my easily angered boyfriend.
How can it be just for the United States to disallow the good citizen from packing his or her own automatic weaponry? My great-grandmother once had her purse stolen, but I bet if she had been prepared, if she had been packing, that criminal would have thought twice before messing with my Nonna. She would have really freaked him out. Hopefully she would not have had to shoot the evildoer, but her self-defense is nothing to make light of now is it?
In addition, when my children go to high school, not only will they confront hormonal problems, but now they will have to deal with really angry teenagers and their shotguns. Would you want your daughter or son, unsuspectingly passing notes in English class, to be blown away because he or she did not have the proper means of protection? Of course, if a child is not big enough to fire the gun properly, the gun is not going to be of much use to him or her. Do not fear, as states like Texas are making progress in attempting to pass into law the right for principals, if not students, to pack heat.
I just don't know what this society is thinking. It's bad enough that you are not supposed to drink until you're 21 years old but you also cannot obtain a legal firearm until you are 18 years old. There go 18 unprotected years of one's life before the law is on the citizens' side in the case of guns. It's a jungle out there, you know? It's good to know that there do exist individuals such as Charleton Heston, who will stand by guns and say, "only out of my cold, dead hand" will you pry my rifle. Perhaps if those kids every year who find their parents' guns knew how to use them, we would not have so many tragic accidents. And why must one conceal the gun?
I was in Israel for a short time and I found that the presence of people with M-16s slung across their chests (like you would a purse) can appear very intimidating. Maybe if we could all strap a rifle across our chests, we would intimidate the bad guys enough that we would not be messed with. It would be something akin to the Cold War and the deterrence factor. Would you mess with the old lady and the AK-47 or the young guy in shorts and a t-shirt? It's really too much of a risk to bet that the old lady would refrain from blowing your head off; you just cannot know.
Now certainly it's true that with everyone bearing a firearm there are bound to be some accidents, some over-escalated confrontations. We all know that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yes, maybe they do so with guns but you can't direct your abuse at the gun. Perhaps you should pack a bigger weapon next time.
If everyone has a gun then people may actually practice and know how to use their individual weapon as well as Dirty Harry knew his. Take for instance Texans and their guns. We like to pack heat in Texas. Our motto is "Don't Mess with Texas" and we mean it, but we are also the "friendly state." And why? Because you can be nice when you know you are not going to be messed with. Hence, gun control is a wasted argument as no one can say that they do not need a PFA. And once everyone has a PFA, walking around with it slung over his or her shoulder, life will be so much more pleasant.
Anna Barbour is a junior Arts and Letters student. Her column appears every other Monday.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Monday, April 9, 2001
