Debating for firearms

Franklin Herr
Staff Writer

Of all the skirmishes further dividing the American public, few have proven to be more polarizing than that of the current ‘gun control’ discussion.
Firearms, as a whole, have gotten a bad rap in recent years. This is due to the completely misrepresentative idea that the possession of a gun by a mass shooter somehow provides the gun itself and those in support of its existence with the bulk of the blame for the often tragic outcome. How then, can there be countries which implement next to nonexistent firearm regulations, with some of the lowest crime and homicide rates in the world?
In recent years, there has been a surge of violent, firearm-related mass murders. There are innocent children in the ground due to the effects of such incidents, such as the all-too fresh case of Sandy Hook Elementary. But what if we ask ourselves, “who is to blame for such acts of violence?”
Lately, the consensus from too large a percentage of the country would attribute such acts to the guns themselves, even more so than to the killer himself. Apparently, in some cases, the firearms seem to be viewed through more hatred and disapproval than the murderer is.
If it is believed, at all, that fault lies within the weapon of choice, rather than the killer’s heart, then Frito Lay should expect to be hated and boycotted, lest a mass murderer decides to attack his victims with Cracker Jacks.
Guns are not the problem. The problem lies in the malice manifested in many a citizen’s mind. It is a shame that such a constitutional right, that of which to bear arms, may soon be under even more unnecessary fire, given the provided, inaccurate causation that the simple utilization of a weapon essentially justifies a murderer’s insanity.
Consider for a moment the purpose of a firearm. When used civilly and properly, is it not used for self-defense? Why does the Secret Service carry so many guns? Is this for no other reason besides the fact that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun?
As the President continues to push for regulation and reform within the gun control issue (while being escorted by dozens of firearms everywhere he goes), it becomes increasingly difficult to wrap my mind around one thing: enacting and furthering laws that are expected to be obeyed by criminals. Murderers are criminals. If they are willing to kill others and themselves, what is keeping them from breaking any other law in order to carry out their wishes? A gun is a tool; it is not a crime. My point is this: we as a country, as a representative body in one of the most powerful countries ever to exist, ought to think for ourselves. It is assumed that our government knows how to represent us well, and in most cases, this is true.
I find it alarming, however, that the only means of self-defense against a well-oiled, influential governmental institution such as our own, that of an armed force of citizens, may not withstand the current, unconstitutional fervor. Guns, in and of themselves, have never been, are not, and will never be, the problem.
As tumultuous as this ongoing debate has been, the only hypothetical alternative may be, startlingly so, similar to the ideas shared in Thomas More’s Utopia. The world is a scary place; even scarier may be any given alternative to the reality which we very well may be incredibly fortunate to be living in. We must think critically, respond accordingly, and remember that our government exists to serve us, not vice versa.