Be not afraid of guns

Last week I wrote about the National Rifle Association’s right to exist. Today, I defend guns, which are not the Antichrist so many claim them
to be.

What is lost in the public furor about mass gun violence is the realization that guns are not the only sources of
violence.

In past years, knife incidents have also commanded public attention. The deaths and injuries that have resulted are no less of a factor.

But the disproportionate amount of national controversy regarding school stabbings versus school shootings cannot be ignored.

For understandable reasons, guns have been at the center of this controversy.
As the specter of the military-industrial complex continues to captivate the public imagination, the unrelenting evolution of the firearm might lend credence to the idea that they are increasingly dangerous and no longer fit for public
distribution.

But for all the advances in weapons technology and adaptations toward it, we must remember one thing — guns are just tools.

The critics of groups like the NRA often misconstrue arguments against them into the counterintuitive statement that  the solution to gun violence is more guns. This is oversimplification at its finest.

The less politically expedient but more nuanced position is a gun is still inherently a tool used for two purposes.

The first is for defense against attack, of course, but the second is inherently for deterrence. Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, but continues to beat out perennial favorites like Detroit and St. Louis for aggregate murder capital of the country.

Though the regretful reality of gun crime in these major metropolitan areas is that it is a commonplace occurrence, many more muggings, hold-ups and assaults could be prevented by having those who abide by the law have the means to defend themselves.

One historical example is the Colfax Massacre, during which a hundred black people were defenseless against a gun-toting mob of white people angry at the result of state legislature elections.

And to make the issue worse, the Supreme Court upheld the arms restrictions by pro-white state legislatures as constitutional in a 5-4 decision in United States v. Cruikshank.

In a supposedly post-Cold War world, the concept of mutually assured destruction now seems little more than a thought exercise.

But the problems that well-intentioned politicians intend to solve through gun control may have long-term consequences.

When law-abiding citizens of this nation are prevented from obtaining weapons for self-defense, criminals and thugs will continue to acquire arms to allow their insidious enterprises to flourish.

The argument that guns should be regulated because they are nothing more than instruments solely made for killing runs face-first into an inherent logical flaw.
Two-handed swords like claymores or zweihanders are made with the express intent of killing, yet there is not nearly as much controversy over the possession or distribution of these implements.

Ultimately, the American people will speak to the efficacy of gun restrictions through their efforts both in grassroots campaigns, online petitions and voting patterns.

Before we slip into the mindset that firearm ownership is simply the providence of irrational and paranoid conspiracy theorists, we must recognize our own history and current condition to guide our views today.

mjsu@indiana.edu