Is the damage to society from guns worth the freedom to have guns?

[Jack Burton]

The Question

Are we as a country willing to accept hundreds of thousands of horrific situations and incidents when those who mis-use an otherwise legal substance create chaos and harm innocents? Or do we demand that freedom for all be curtailed so that the innocents be saved?

Is the damage to society from guns worth the freedom to have guns?

My latest essay. Any feedback would be appreciated, and I will certainly ask for Facebook likes if you will. As a note, yes I know the damage is not done from the guns but from the choices of people, but headlines are written to attack hits from Google, not to be accurate.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Are we as a country willing to accept hundreds of thousands of horrific situations and incidents when those who mis-use an otherwise legal substance create chaos and harm innocents? Or do we demand that freedom for all be curtailed so that the innocents be saved?

This brings us right back around to the point that if there were any merit to the elimination of guns causing safety, then Washington DC and Chicago should be two of the safest places on the face of the planet. I believe we all know the score on this one! That said, I am happy that the writer of the linked material understands the truth regarding freedom. OK, I re-read. I missed the implication in the OP as to the author's identity. No surprise in this case!

 

[Mackey]

I'm going to read this. Promise ... but the title?
"... the damage to society from guns"????
Society is not damaged by guns, knives, blunt objects, bare knuckles, noogies or any other means of causing pain or death.

Some members of a damaged society use these tools improperly.

 

[Bunnykid68]

tagged for reading

 

[phylodog]

Short answer = yes

 

[evanrw61]

I hope I'm not butchering Ben Franklin's words to much, but I beleive his quote was "Anyone that would sacrafice freedom for security, has neither security or freedom.
I vote yes!

 

[Mackey]

Some suggested titles:

"Is the right to keep and bear arms a risk to society?"
"Does harm brought on society through the improper use of guns worth the right to bear arms?"
"Is society harmed by the right to bear arms? Is it worth the risk?"

 

[! twitty]

If those inclined to hurt the masses don't have guns they will find another tool to do it. Haven't you ever read of the mass stabbings on Japan railways? Are we going to rid the world of steak knives too?

 

[giovani]

Is it worth the risk to let people have automobiles when they get misused far more often than guns and many more people die as a result?

 

[Stschil]

I more law abiding citizens had guns and knew how and when to use them, it wouldn't be long before there would be a lot fewer criminals around to use them improperly.

 

[Jack Burton]

Some suggested titles:

"Is the right to keep and bear arms a risk to society?"
"Does harm brought on society through the improper use of guns worth the right to bear arms?"
"Is society harmed by the right to bear arms? Is it worth the risk?"

I'll consider some of these or variations. Depends upon what google analytics tell me.

 

[biggen]

Is the harm to society that is caused by over weight, worth the freedom to own forks?

Makes about as much sense to me.

 

[giovani]

As for me I will assume the risk, it appears to be as likely to be involved in one of these columbine/Batman type situations as it is to win at powerball

 

[John Galt]

This question seems to ignore the real reason our Right to self-defense is protected in the first place, doesn't it? I thought the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that we were able to overthrow another tyrannical government, just in case we ever pissed away what they died trying to give us .....

Of course it's worth the risk. Individuals must always have the means to protect themselves from what they allow society to devolve to.

 

[Mark 1911]

I think its worth it to keep our 2a freedoms despite the challenges that criminals present to our freedoms. The United States is unique in the world regarding the freedoms its founders recognized as inalienable.

With freedom comes challenges, and our freedoms are constantly threatened by many false and seductive ideologies - actually this is nothing new. I can be somewhat opinionated, so will try not to be part of a 2nd thread deleted over controversy in the same day. But one notion that seems to be prevalent is the notion that government can keep us safe from all harm, and somehow that notion entitles them to strip the people of the freedoms that being an American should gaurantee. We say we don't buy it, but yet many people who pride themselves on being American and devoted to freedom buy into notions that have their roots in socialism. Satan is very clever, the lie is always wrapped in a skin of truth.

I read a book in college that you might enjoy, its called the Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. You may find some good ideas for your paper here. It was actually a report written by the President's Comission on Law Enforcement and Admin of Justice. It dates back to the days of Kennedy and Johnson, but still very appropriate in our day, if not even more.

Here's a link to the pdf: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=42

Used paperback available on Amazon:
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Crime-Free-Society-Silver/dp/0380010909/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1343341287&sr=8-2&keywords=the+challenge+of+crime+in+a+free+society]Amazon.com: Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (9780380010905): I Silver: Books[/ame]

 

[Denny347]

Doing away with guns will do little to curb violence...we will find other means to kill each other. We are a violent people, unmatched in the civilized world. We might as well retain the ability to defend ourselves from the wolves.

 

[Colts]

I think the issue is the illegal use of legal substances. Laws do not prevent illegal activities, they just define them.

 

[jworm1420]

all the good points being made doesnt leave me much to say other than yes, its worth all the risk. one poster hit it riht on the head, if ther wer no guns and someone wanted to cause mass harm they would use something else. i dnt think its so much a gun issue as the medie/sheeple make it out to be. theres no asy answer for how to stop these tragedys, but taking our 2A is not gna stop these types of things from happening.

 

[Jack Burton]

I think the issue is the illegal use of legal substances. Laws do not prevent illegal activities, they just define them.

Colt, you come pretty close to what the article is about:

The illegal/unwise use of one legal product that is tolerated as part of a free society versus the the illegal/unwise use of another legal product that then cause some people to hypocritically want to ban or do away with it.

 

[SmileDocHill]

If all guns in the world magically disappeared tomorrow my kids, parents, and eventually myself (I'm not getting younger) will be basically defenseless against even an average young physically fit punk.

We need to change cultural norms so that the handgun (or any firearm) is once again referred to as the great equalizer. Once you get into a debate over the pro's and con's of society's access to firearms you have already lost by allowing yourself to debate good verses evil focusing on the tool that is neither. It is harder to defend than it is to attack so bad guys will always have an advantage in that regard. Take away all firearms (from both sides even) and you have made the (bad guy) advantage even greater. They can use improvised or homemade bombs, and a myriad of other items that are not practical to use for defense. You are only disarming good guys by taking away this one category of tools.

I guess my point is that I wouldn't take my time to read it if it looks like you are debating the risk:benefit of societies access to guns. I read that title and say to myself both sides of this debate don't get it.