The most widely-used argument for gun control holds that disarming our citizens, and taking away their right to a firearm will, in turn, end gun violence. The theory seems harmless- if the government incorporates and enforces gun laws in an attempt to end the sale and manufacturing of firearms, while also removing them from houses of American families will eliminate all guns from our society; preventing gun crime. However, this theory neglects many variables that play into the situation such as geographic location and culture. Although the idea is appealing upon hasty deliberation, the causal chain can take many darker paths.
In his Netflix original standup special, Jim Jefferies stated, “In Australia, we had guns. Right up until 1996. In 1996, Australia had the biggest massacre on Earth. It still hasn’t been beaten. Now, after that, they banned the guns. Now, in the 10 years before Port Arthur, there were 10 massacres. Since the gun ban in 1996, there hasn’t been a single massacre since… In Australia, we had the biggest massacre on Earth, and the Australian government went, ‘That’s it! No more guns!’ And we all went, ‘Yeah, all right, then. That seems fair enough, really.’Now, in America, you had the Sandy Hook massacre where little, tiny children died, and your government went, “Maybe… we’ll get rid of the big guns?’” Although this argument seems sound, Jefferies utilizes fallacious logic by comparing Australian citizens to American citizens. Australia and America are two different countries (continents as well) that possess many cultures with varying beliefs, contrastive geological settings, and disparate political beliefs. Aside from the beliefs and feelings of individuals, Australia lacks the inflow of unregistered, illegally transported firearms as a result of an adjacent country. If the government took firearms away from American families, they would take away the citizen’s right to protect not only themselves, but their families from the criminals who purchase these illegally transported guns. Further, a fact check on Jefferies and his statement, “since the gun ban in 1996, there hasn’t been a single massacre:” at least twelve shootings that fit into the dictionary definition of massacre have occurred since the ban with countless other shootings, not to mention the increase in home invasions.
In 1971, the war on drugs began, a policy from the Nixon administration of which we are still feeling the negative results from. The main goal of the war on drugs was to drastically drop addiction and crime rates, spread the disastrous message of what drugs do to an individual, and most of all, eradicate addiction in America. However, the results were quite the opposite. Addiction rates skyrocketed, crime rates rose dramatically, and drug use is at an all time high not only for adults, but adolescents as well. Although drugs are illegal and punished so severely, people still choose to do them. It is only logical to believe that people will still buy guns even though it is illegal; through the black market. If guns were illegal to be owned, police would be the only ones fit to defend against a criminal. For that reason, if a criminal breaks into a family’s house, that family will be unable to defend themselves. Unfortunately, the family may wait up to an average of seven minutes before police arrive. The consequences of which could be fatal.
There are over 300 million guns in the US, compared to 324,118,787 American citizens. In what way could law enforcement, consisting of 1.1 million officers, remove so many guns, from so many families, in so many different locations? In the case this somehow happened effectively, millions of families would be left without a chance to defend themselves, while a small demographic of our population owns a weapon; a threat to the rest of society.
By nature, no human needs a constitution granting them the right to defend themselves or their loved ones; a natural right. Second, the nullification of our second amendment cannot be warranted if there are actual uses for a firearm in a civil society.
Most of the citizens in Alaska own guns and utilize them for two things; food and defense. There is not much society within Alaska. There are very small amounts of roads, small amounts of people, and stores. Therefore, the people of Alaska must fend for themselves. Typically, the father of the house hunts to feed the family. Without their guns, the family cannot eat. To take away their right to a gun, because the rest of the country has the privilege to shop for food is inhumane. Also, even if our government were to include a clause that allowed the sale, use, and transfer of firearms in Alaska, that will be the new place where criminals can buy their guns and spread them across the country.
As one can see, the creation of the firearm began a catch-22 within the American culture. However, no matter your opinion of guns in our society, it must be admitted that guns do serve a function within our civil society. Yes, there is evil in this world, and the longer life goes on, the more apparent it is and there is nothing we may ever do to stop it, but American citizens must have the option to defend themselves. No matter your stance on the argument, a gun is protection, and no American needs a piece of paper to tell them they have the right to protect their life, liberty, happiness, and family.