One World

26) The Father's Will

Posted 1st July 2016

This month, in the wake of the worst mass shooting in U.S. history where 49 people in an Orlando nightclub were ejected from their earthly bodies and many more were injured, there has been a debate in the U.S. congress on whether or not to limit gun access.

If it is possible for a person with malevolent intentions to acquire a gun, then it is conceivable that everyone will want to own a gun to protect themselves and their loved ones from such a person. Indeed, gun sales in the U.S. go up following mass shooting events.

However, the greater the number of guns that are privately owned, the greater the number of violent accidents, and the greater is the ease with which the guns are obtained by people of ill intent. And so, the problem keeps worsening.

Naturally, there are outcries for gun control, as the number of shooting incidents increases with the number of guns in circulation. However, individuals, I would suggest, don't think about the overall statistics as a government might, but are concerned with protecting their individual selves and their loved ones. People read about violent gun crime in the newspaper every day, then turn the pages to read their horoscope, or perhaps attempt the crossword. However, if a member of their family is in any way hurt they will be distraught. Humans are, I think generally, self-interested beings.

Let's say, for simplicity, that every time the number of gun owners as a percentage of the population goes up by 1%, the number of shooting incidents per year also goes up by 1%. Therefore, to reduce the likelihood of you as an individual being caught up in a shooting incident you might want national gun ownership to be minimised. However, if you happen to find yourself in a shooting incident, you might then prefer national gun ownership to be high as it gives the greatest chance of the shooter currently in your vicinity being stopped by someone else present (or yourself). Of course, this high national gun ownership then means more shooting incidents per year, but your only immediate concern is the particular incident you have found yourself involved in.

This is a paradox: greater gun ownership means more shooting incidents, and thus a greater chance that you might be caught up in such an incident, but it also offers a greater chance that the shooter will be stopped early. But there is a solution to this quandary: a TOTAL ban on guns.

If there are NO guns available, then there will be no shooting incidents, and therefore no necessity for anyone to own a gun to protect their person from such incidents.

But (as pertaining to the U.S.) what about the 'right the bear arms'?

Why are you putting 17th and 18th century politicians on a pedestal as if they are the voices of wisdom? Don't blindly adhere to what anyone tells you - think for yourselves! You have centuries of history with many gun accidents and crimes since that amendment was written. It's wrong. You have no right to threaten another sentient being's Earthly existence with the touch of a trigger.

But what about guns for hunting?

Animals are sentient beings. They can experience fear and pain. The argument that you are entitled to a lethal weapon so that you can menacingly chase, agonisingly maim and brutally slaughter a terrified animal which is already struggling to survive and care for its young is abhorrent. You do not need guns for hunting because you should not hunt. Rather, you should protect animals and use your wits to help make their lives more comfortable and pleasant.

The above argument relates to any kind of weaponry. If the weapons do not exist, then the countermeasures are not required, and the spiral of escalating quantities and powers of the weapons and countermeasures never takes off.