In the letter dated July 28, 2005, Ban all guns from CI, the author implores members of government to stake a place in world history; make these Islands a gun-free zone on pain of significant loss of liberty for those who would otherwise eschew such a reasonable and logical societal expectation.
I am assuming that the author is suggesting the banning of all firearms and not just the often maligned hand gun.
His (assuming the author is male) argument as stated in the 850 word essay can be summarised as
1. Firearms are evil and dangerous things.
2. There is no legitimate reason for citizens to own firearms. Therefore, firearms should be banned.
The first two statements are intended to serve as premises for the conclusion.
Unfortunately, they are not premises at all but unsubstantiated conclusions.
Contrary to the author’s statement, the only disarming aspect to his argument is the complete lack of logic and reasonableness.
He attempts to bolster his conclusions by stating: 1. Guns are hell’s tools.
This begs the question but it has some truth. Firearms are tools, which are used by many reasonable and logical people throughout the world for the legitimate reason of hunting for food and sport (notwithstanding arguments against hunting for sport).
2. The frightening fact that there are hundreds of millions of firearms available in the world.
True, many of them in places like Switzerland and Canada where law abiding citizens own and use them responsibly. (Although Canada might be too progressive an example as they allow such inherently evil, unreasonable and uncivilized activities as gay marriage and medicinal marijuana. God, and everyone else, knows what a hell on earth Canada is.)
3. The UN is attempting to contain the international trade in arms. Even if this were true, which it isn’t, it’s irrelevant to the argument of whether to ban guns.
Limiting trade is not a statement to the nefarious nature of guns.
It’s a method (and mostly ineffective) of controlling the access to guns.
I don’t believe the UN has ever been presented with a resolution for the global ban of all private firearms because member nations recognize the important role of firearms in a civilized society.
4. A gun is a device expressly designed for killing things. If we extend this reasoning then logically we should ban bows as well.
Yet no one suggests bows should be banned.
Archery is taught in summer camps and high schools across North America even though the physical benefits are questionable.
Hand guns and rifles are used in many forms of competition shooting and can even be found in events at the Olympic Games. The one item that is expressly designed for killing is cigarettes and civilized societies still grant restricted access to them.
5. The mechanics of wounding and killing remain constant and fourfold. Interesting digression but who cares? True, someone intent on murder may find it more expedient to use a firearm but someone committed to the act could just as easily use a machete.
How many hundreds of thousands were hacked to death in Rwanda?
The truth of the matter is that the author isn’t interested in presenting a rational, logical argument to ban firearms because there isn’t one to present.
His argument is really about exercising his ego.
The author hates firearms. According to him he loathes them and therefore everyone else should too and agree with him that they should be banned.
Anyone who disagrees with his logic is obviously irrational, uncivilized and of questionable moral fibre.
His authoritarian desire is to convince governments to suppress the freedoms and liberties of those citizens who wish have to have the right to choose for themselves.
A liberal democracy, at least a successful one, is based on the balance between respect for the sovereignty of the individual and the rights of society under the social contract.
Reasonable gun control should be a goal of an enlightened democracy.
I shouldn’t be allowed to strap a 50 calibre machine gun to the top of my SUV or drive a Sherman tank through town; the risks to society are too great. Nor should my right to own and use personal firearms responsibly under the auspices of the law be revoked because criminal elements use them outside those auspices to harm others.
Thankfully, contrary to the desire of the author, we still have those rights.
I have chosen to remain anonymous.
Why? Because I can. That’s one of the benefits of choice in a civilized liberal democracy.
Name withheld by request
Related Videos
