Gun Control

Gun control is a topic that adds the controversial layer of mortality to the discussion.  No matter how much logic or historical evidence you have on either side, if a person knows someone who passed away as a result of gun violence or misuse, their emotions often preclude an intelligent discussion.  I would like to preemptively apologize to anyone who has lost a friend, relative, or acquaintance to either the presence of firearms or the lack thereof.  I do not intend to reopen old wounds with this discussion, but I do wish to address the controversy surrounding the topic and do so with the care and honesty it deserves.

The right to own guns is rooted in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution:

Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.

 The 2nd Amendment grants the citizens of this country the inalienable right to gun ownership as a measure of balance to protect their freedoms.  That has powerful implications.  The government cannot infringe upon the rights of the individual to use firearms to protect themselves or their freedom.  So why would the Founders guarantee the ability for anyone to wield dangerous weapons?  We have all seen the consequences of violent crime.  We have also heard the heart-retching stories of people who have survived home invasions or attempted robberies by the virtue of being gun owners.  So where do you draw the line between public safety and personal protection?

This might be that line.

If you believe that the defense of public safety exceeds the rights of the individual to own a gun, reasoning that no loss of life is justifiable to uphold the Constitution, that is understandable at first glance.  You might reason that without guns, the world would be a safer place.  Following that logic, if people are not allowed to own weapons, they would not have the ability to harm or threaten others in either criminal or accidental scenarios and no one would die or get injured from guns (or bullets if you want to be literal).  This type of thought process has led to many laws surrounding regulation, restriction, and even prohibition of gun ownership over the years.

You might be asking yourself why states and cities are allowed to pass laws that restrict gun ownership in attempts to curb violence, despite the fact that doing so is a clear case of residents' rights being "infringed".  If you are, congratulations!  You might already be a Libertarian!  As it turns out, the Supreme Court tends to agree you.  In two recent rulings, citizens in Washington D.C. and Chicago successfully invoked the 2nd Amendment to protect their rights in cities that had contradictory anti-gun laws.

What does this mean for the average American?  This may be cliche but the logic that always made sense to me was the fact that if you outlaw guns in a society, only the people who break laws will have them, which in turn would embolden them to commit more crimes with the knowledge that the general public would not have the ability to defend themselves.  Not to mention, if our government ever decided to systematically remove our Constitutionally guaranteed rights (no Obama jokes, I promise), we would have no way to prevent the military from being used against us if we were to protest.  To me, the tradeoff is worth it.  I'll take the freedom, you can have the illusion of security.