Firearms today are a very controversial topic. There are always people standing for the middle ground, but most often the people arguing are completely for or completely against. Wild opposites are a hallmark of our times. No matter which side you are on, I sincerely hope you will continue to read, and decide with a clear mind.

To start, what are the main arguments against guns? Primarily, they are dangerous. They are the most effective weapons easily available ever created. Previously to kill, a man had to come up close and personal, causing emotional problems and increasing the chance of the soldier dying himself, using a sword that would chip and shatter over extended use. A gun could kill a man from a distance with minimal damage to yourself, emotional or physical, and any joe schmo off the street could kill almost as well as any trained career killer two hundred years ago. Dangerous, yes. And we would definitely rather avoid unnecessary deaths.

Allow me to return to the “easily available” part. If you happen to be born more than twenty-one years ago, lack felonhood, and acquire 600 dollars, you can easily visit a sporting store and buy a nice colt 1911 in 45acp, to name the rather iconic pistol. Now a 1911 could easily kill someone. The requirements listed above are not excessively difficult. Fears of somebody meeting them and doing damage are not unfounded. 

Now, these are all good points, and should be addressed. However, do they outweigh the benefits? And, perhaps most  important, is it the job of the government to interfere? 

The first and foremost argument for guns is that we use them to protect ourselves. In the words of the US department of justice, “Handguns are used more often to prevent the commission of crimes than by felons attempting them.” Most people are generally decent, right? Thus most people would rather stop a criminal than be one. Thus it makes sense that stopping crime is the use that most guns, particularly handguns, fall to. 

However, home defense and scaring muggers isn’t the only use that guns can be put to. 

Men can also protect themselves against governments trying to take their rights, not just single men. An extremely famous example was America’s secession of England, which I believe we all agree was the best choice. Imagine for a minute what would have happened if all the civilians had guns in Austria, Germany, and all those many countries that Hitler annexed. Switzerland had an idea of what to do. Every one of the families and most of the individuals had a gun and knew how to use it. If you look at them they were able to be the island sanctuary in Europe, the only free country during WWII. They did give the Nazi’s legal and political allowances, but remaining separate would not be possible if Hitler doubted their strength.  I’m not promoting that we attack the capitol building and defund the police. I simply state that if a faction stages a coup and institutes martial law, we should have a means to protect ourselves, or as a last resort, overthrow their government. In the words of Alexander Hamilton in his federalist 29, “In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition.” If you will allow me to clarify, he is not referring to government paid career soldiers. The militia at that time was volunteers funded by the government, and just as advanced as the army. I am not advocating for any form of anarchy. A government is always a necessary institution, as long as it does not encroach on our inherent rights. 

An argument perhaps not always understood, should be. We have a right to own guns. As inherent as our right to life is the right to ownership. There is always a circumstance to use anything in a way that it will not encroach on others rights. As long as I’m not stabbing people it can be acceptable or even very beneficial for me to own a pocket knife. That grain bag must be opened. However once I am doing something harmful, such as threatening someone, I lose the right to own that pocket knife. The same is applicable for guns or even uranium-235. Habeas corpus is a part of the constitution. You need to have the body to convict anybody. My uncle hasn’t shot anybody. Why has he lost the right to own a bump stock? Do not punish us for what we did not do. The two rights blend perfectly with each other. Ownership, and no unjust punishment. Now, some have brought up the point, “look at all those mass shootings! There are definitely bodies.” I ask back, what did I do to affect the existence of those bodies? They are all the way over in Texas and I did nothing to contribute. Why do I have to suffer from somebody else’s punishment? This clearly addresses the issue of availability as well. It’s simply not the government’s job to stop us from having them. Sure a background check is a good idea. Felons shouldn’t buy guns. However, the rest of us can exercise our rights to our hearts content.

Here is perhaps the most important question. Is it the job of the government to ensure that we will make the right choices? This is very hotly contested, but I think the constitution is clear in this matter. Their job is to protect our rights without taking them themselves. They can convict criminals of crimes the criminals committed. They can protect us without limiting others. They can provide services such as a post office and public roads, but they cannot stop others from providing them.

And now, for the original question. Is it the guns that are evil? Or is it the users? I believe the answer is rather self evident. Guns are a tool. All weapons are tools. They cannot be responsible for their use as they cannot decide. Another reason that has been stated for the inherent evilness of guns is that hey, they are only used for evil. They only do evil, thus they are evil. I’m afraid this is also faulty. We have used guns to protect ourselves for as long as they’ve been invented. We use them for hunting. Father and son use them to bond. We use them for pest control. The benefits are there. And people, as previously displayed, use them for the benefits far more than the harm.

In conclusion, I would like you to do something. For your benefit just as much as mine. When you watch the news, listen to late night comedians, or simply have a conversation with your co-worker, watch for illogicalities. Don’t simply take their word for it. Compare it to what you already know. Even if you don’t know any contradiction, try using deduction and logical flow. Find the truth.