Imagine yourself as a crab that lives in a cave. You have many predators, and the only way to effectively defend yourself is with your claws. Your claws are capable of inflicting serious harm to others, but they keep you alive and keep you safe by warding off predators that want to harm you. Because you have claws, you are able to live each day with little worry that predators will be hanging around your cave with intentions to harm you.
Now, a very small amount of crabs in the ocean had been reported using their claws to hurt other sea animals. So one day, someone comes along and cuts your claws off. You are able to survive without them, but you notice that the number of predators hanging around your cave has substantially increased. The predators now see you as being defenseless, and move in for the kill. You have no way to defend yourself, and fall victim to the predators.
Obviously as humans we don’t have claws, but there are other tools that we can use to defend our homes, such as guns. There are roughly 300 million privately owned firearms in the United States. Studies have shown that firearms prevent a minimum of 800,000 violent crimes a year. Taking away the guns of those 300 million people would mean taking away their best means of defense against the 800,000 cases of violent crime in this country every year. A government gun control policy would also be unconstitutional, as it would infringe on our rights to bear arms. This is the basis of what the Second Amendment entails and is promised to the American people as, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Some people might argue that guns are dangerous because they can efficiently cause extreme amounts of bodily harm to others. But are guns really to blame? Ask yourself a series of questions when it comes to deciding if you support gun control or not. Can a gun fire without someone to pull the trigger? Does a gun choose to be used against someone? The answer to these questions is “no.” The choice to use a firearm against another human being lies solely on the person firing the gun. Every year hundreds of thousands of Americans die because of obesity, but do we blame forks and spoons for their deaths? Should we ban forks and spoons because they make eating food much easier? Blaming an inanimate object for the death of a human who was using it is simply irrational. A more appropriate solution for the issue of gun control would not be to take firearms away from sane Americans, but rather to assess the mental health of all people seeking to purchase a firearm. Implementing more in-depth assessments of firearm consumers, as well as mandating one-on-one interviews before the gun is allowed to be handed over to the consumer would help ensure that guns don’t fall into the hands of mentally unstable people.
If a criminal is willing to break the law by killing someone, what would stop them from breaking the law by purchasing guns from black markets or other underground societies? Taking away our guns does not protect us, it endangers us. It leaves us defenseless and vulnerable to criminals that will find ways to hurt us in ways that we cannot defend ourselves against. The solution is now made simple: If we protect our Second Amendment, we will thus protect ourselves.
Jacob Welter is a sophomore studying sports management.
