Why More Guns Isn’t The Answer
Paul | 23 04 2007If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!
United States presidential candidate Ron Paul, an outspoken libertarian, has called for removal of gun laws which he claims oppose civil liberties and encourage shootings. Paul stated that more guns could have prevented tragedies such as 9/11, or this week’s killing at Virginia Tech: “A concealed gun carried by a responsible person — that might have ended the problem that they had at Virginia Tech with one person being killed or two people being killed.”
But the key in his strategy is the word “responsible.” It requires the general public to be able to make informed decisions, and separate emotion from logic and reason, something currently only mandated to the police. Despite the large potential corruption of cops, there is far greater possible harm from arming everyone with a gun who wants one.
Having easily available guns in tense situations is just a recipe for disaster. I do not believe that the majority of people would be “responsible” with a gun, especially in America. Frankly, I would not want to enter a country that had such lenient laws towards something as life-threatening as a gun. I can just imagine a situation with a group of people all at gunpoint with each other.
I believe that nobody should have a gun. Maybe even in an ideal society, police would only need tasers (and far less harmful ones at that). There is certainly no need for the public to have them. Even hunting, I don’t see why they exist. Why does someone feel such an intense need to kill another animal? Can’t they just go pick up a less destructive hobby, like golf? And if you live in a place where you think you need a gun for personal protection, what does that say about you, your neighborhood, local police, and country?!
I simply feel like more can be achieved through education. If a truly intelligent and altruistic society did exist, where we all got along and were really able to make informed decisions by separating emotion from reason, would there even be a need for guns? People would be able to agree to disagree, and just get on with their lives.
If there was a reformed education system in place to nurture such a society, and drugs were legalized to eliminate the gang culture that supports the destructive use and illegal distribution of guns, then there would no longer be a need for the general public to have guns for self-protection. Then maybe we can put those gentler tasers in the pockets of police instead of guns.
Last 5 posts by Paul
- Ice Gaps: Gone by 2020 - May 2nd, 2007
- Blair Blames Murders on "Black Culture" - April 18th, 2007
- Refusing to Teach the Holocaust - April 10th, 2007
- Banning Smoking - April 4th, 2007
- China and Russia Go to Mars! - March 30th, 2007
Popularity: 71% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
The Why More Guns Isn’t The Answer by New School Politics, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Dear friend of Objectivism, The Undercurrent would appreciate your help promoting
Student of Objectivism | 24 04 2007Dear friend of Objectivism,
The Undercurrent would appreciate your help promoting its upcoming issue. We respect your time, so thanks in advance just for this email. If you are so inclined, please consider doing one or more of the following. Thanks Kindly!
(1) Blog the announcement from the Undercurrent (attached below).
(2) Read and comment on any of our latest articles. In particular, you may find interesting the interview with Onkar Ghate on free speech.
(3) If you think the Undercurrent is doing good work, consider adding us to your blogroll.
(4) If you feel strongly about the value of the Undercurrent, encourage your readers to get involved with the paper, whether as distributors, officers, or donors.
(5) If you feel strongly about the disvalue of distributing a campus paper (or the Undercurrent in particular), consider blogging your thoughts and starting a discussion. We suspect that there are Objectivists who do not think that the Undercurrent is an effective tool for promoting Objectivism. If so, we’d like to hear why. Does it have something to do with TU’s content in particular? Is it more a general issue of the effectiveness of a campus paper as a medium for spreading Objectivism? Or is it the whole activity of campus activism in general that these Objectivists view as ineffective? Whether or not you personally hold any of these views, by starting a discussion on this issue, you can help bring out such arguments, and help us figure out the best possible way to promote Objectivism on college campuses.
(6) Even if you do not have the time or inclination to blog about the Undercurrent, send us a quick private email of your overall impression of our efforts. Are you generally impressed, indifferent, too busy to notice, or disappointed? We are very open to criticism, and sincerely want to hear your thoughts. [Private emails can be sent to mail@the-undercurrent.com]
Thank you again for your time,
Student of Objectivism
http://studentofobjectivism.blogspot.com/
Distribution Officer
The Undercurrent
Patently absurd. Guns do little to provoke violence as compared
UK Gun Ban | 4 01 2008Patently absurd. Guns do little to provoke violence as compared to preventing violence. The facts don’t lie. Just look at Canada, the UK, Washington DC, Australia and every other place that bans guns. Places much more peaceful than the US — but after banning guns, crime skyrocketed. No coincidence.