Edward Abbey The Right To Arms Analysis

Lance Morrison
Professor Evans
Writing 021
3/6/09
Topic: Gun Control: Would it really help? “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” Edward Abbey argues in his essay, “The Right to Arms.” Many people are familiar with the expression, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill People.” I am a firm believer in this statement. A firearm is a controllable, unbiased, and uncorrupt object; a tool with multiple and important purposes. To discredit them because of their potential danger, when in the wrong hands, is illogical and strips Americans of their liberty and their right! There are many reasons to support the second Amendment. Aside from firearms being used in hunting, recreational activities, law enforcement, and the military, firearms provide the American citizens with a potential “safeguard against an over-bearing federal authority; one of our most vital checks and balances; a source, if need be, to overthrow usurpers” (debate
handbook). Not only do they provide “vital checks and balances” (debate handbook) between the American citizens and the government, but they keep the American citizens in check amongst each other. A superficial look at this political predicament can be misleading. This is not a case where society is simply enjoying something and is, simultaneously, putting others at risk. We must take this scenario further, through research and close and analysis, and say, not only is it our right as Americans to keep and bear arms, but our responsibility and our duty as American citizens to exercise our power in government. Bronwyn Jones, in her essay, “Arming Myself with a Gun Is Not the Answer,” argues that guns, “like nuclear weapons, only ensure greater devastation when conflict breaks out or the inevitable human error occurs”(315). Well, in the heat of battle, one man doesn’t get sympathy for bringing a smaller stick. If any kind of a “conflict” or “human error” occurs, American citizens deserve to have a reasonable means to defend themselves. A former Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp is recognized as the leading advocate for the second Amendment, and an individual’s right to carry a concealed weapon. She argues to the government that “it’s our right,” meaning the public, “to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys,” meaning the government. Our country was built on the principle that people have the power. Well, if for some unusual reason our government becomes out of control, we, the people, will need a sturdy source of power behind our rebellion. Since the Virginia Tech incident, in which a young man Seung-Hui Cho used multiple guns to kill 32 others and himself, Gun-Control advocates have repeated the statement, “More guns simply lead to more violence” (20/20 ABC).
I agree that it’s a good idea to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the unstable, who wouldn’t? However, we cannot be so sure that a restriction on firearm purchases will do this. In 1997, there was an incident in Dunblane, England, in which sixteen kids were shot. In response, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning citizens from owning almost every type of hand gun (Stossel). The hope was to decrease the crime, but the exact opposite has happened. Since the ban was enacted, gun-related crime in the U.K. has nearly doubled. Nearly the same result occurred after the ban of handguns in Washington D.C. Since Washington’s gun law passed, its murder rate actually increased, even while America’s murder rate dropped” (
Stossel). In his Scholarly journal, Gary Kleck reveals that “No reliable evidence indicates that guns have any net assault-instigating effects, or that aggression- eliciting effects are any more common than inhibiting effects.” He admits Guns can facilitate a criminal’s shift to “less vulnerable targets,” but does not in any way increase the “frequency in which they rob.” In his scholarly journal, “POLICY LESSONS FROM RECENT GUN CONTROL RESEARCH”, Gary Kleck says “reducing gun availability among ‘ordinary people’ will do almost nothing to reduce violent crime. At best, it will act indirectly to reduce the availability of guns to criminals who might steal or otherwise obtain them from legal owners.” Basically this means that when the government tries to keep guns out of the hands of criminals they must remember one very important thing and that is that criminals don’t obey the law. Bans, like the one in the U.K., will only keep firearms out of the ones we need not worry about in the first place; the well-intentioned, law-abiding citizens of America. The following is a quote by Thomas Jefferson that was reiterated by a noted criminologist of his day: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man”(Prodigy). Put quit simply, individuals having firearms makes criminals more skeptical and can even aid in reducing crime.

During an episode of 20/20 on ABC News, John Stossel speaks about gun control. In order to prove that “guns can also save lives,” he interviews people who have been on both ends of the spectrum; victims and criminals. He interviews Tom Palmers, who was one of the individuals who sued Washington D.C. for banning the right to have a gun. He was a victim in an incident where he had to show a firearm in order to save his life. Just walking down the street, Palmers was approached by eighteen to twenty guys who threatened to take his life. He says that “merely having a weapon, and being able to display when I was threatened, saved my life.” While Stossel interviewed a few “maximum security felons,” all of them said that “they fear an armed victim much more than the police.” One spoke out and said, “When you go to rob somebody you don’t know, it makes it a lot harder.” He is referring to the fact that he doesn’t know if they will have a gun or not. Stossel interviews many people that have been involved in a situation where a gun had saved their lives and ever single victim that was interviewed admit that they feel much safer having a gun. This proves that guns cannot only prevent crime but also make citizens feel safer knowing that they have some kind of power in heat of a situation.

Bronwyn Jones says, “For me, owning gun and practicing at a target range would be allowing my sense of victimizing to corrupt my deepest values.” Many people would agree with Jones. Many people believe that people, when equipped with guns, people will become “corrupt” and this will only lead to more violence. But in fact, Guns give us a sense of security and ease. The following is a portion of an ABC interview between a female broadcaster and General Peter Cosgrove, an Australian Treasurer, who was about to sponsor a boy scout troop visiting his headquarters. “FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
“GENERAL COSGROVE:
We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?” This interview argues that just because someone is equipped with the ability to due danger, doesn’t mean that person will do it. Guns don’t cause people to go crazy, they keep people from going crazy. They relieve us in a sense to where we can let go of our paranoia and feel safe in this world. They provide us with the greatest type of Checks and Balances. It is wise for every citizen to own a gun and to be taught how to use it. We have seen through this evidence that it protects us from criminals and could potentially protect us from the government. Again, I understand that it is ideal to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. However, we have seen how passing gun-restricting laws will only put more guns into the wrong hands and keep more guns out of the right hands.