Situation There are societies, where firearm-possession is permitted by the constitution or by the laws for the members of the societ...
Situation
There are societies, where firearm-possession is permitted by the constitution or by the laws for the members of the society. It usually has a historic background. When a society is not protected enough, and a small group of people or even one person can act against the society, it is a good idea and an adequate choice if the society can step up against the oppressing power. If no laws exist, or it cannot be enforced or it can be easily overruled, the society must have its own power to step up and protect themselves. Part of this power can be the possession of firearms by the people. It can be a tool to protect or to enforce the law by the members of the society. It can be an adequate tool to maintain lawfulness for a new or weak society.
The situation of the constitution-allowed gun-possession might be different for a developed society. The developed societies have strong institutions, which are capable to provide protection for the citizens and enforce the laws for the benefit of society. The original reason for universal gun-possession, as a tool to help to protect society, is not necessary anymore. The only case when it might still be needed if the ruling power changed the laws to create an autocracy.
Developed societies still may insist to keep the universal gun-possession valid for different reasons, even if it is not needed anymore:
- For historic reasons. It can act as a praise of the people and maintain their will of those who established the constitution and the society.
- Society thinks this constitution-provided law still needed to protect and maintain the freedom of the society or the freedom of the members of the society against oppression from outside or from any level of society.
- For economical or financial reasons. The gun industry can create profit and wealth for parts of society.
- And maybe for other reasons.
Problem
The reasons for maintaining universal gun-possession can be fulfilled or substituted by other ways in a developed society. The cancelation of the universal gun-possession is especially recommended because it can cause significant drawbacks. Guns are efficient destructive devices, it can make serious damages if not used properly. Guns can be used for committing crimes, murders in the hands of the bad guys. Gun can even be used for mass murder if it is in the hands of a mentally ill person. If firearms are available and easy to reach in the society, the firearms inappropriate use is frequent. If it is used for mass murder frequently, even the whole society can hurt or become damaged.
Solution
When the amendment allows possession of the firearms, because of the drawbacks, the societies usually use laws and rules of regulating the gun possession, like:
- creating the age limit
- limiting by adequacy
- regulating the storage and ruling how may carry or use
- etc.
The problem arises when these regulations can be overruled easily by bad or mentally ill persons. If the unlawful use of guns is frequent and growing, it is a sign that the regulation of the gun-possession is not adequate and needs to be improved.
The regulation can be changed or enhanced to fix the problems, but as experiences show, no effective solution found yet which could prevent unlawful use of the firearms in a society where the law allows gun-possession.
Proposal
What would be a solution to keep the constitution-allowed gun possession of the members of the society valid, keep all the benefits of this law, but avoid the drawbacks?
Because many firearms are in private hands, inefficient, ineffective, or even impossible to protect society against the unlawful use of firearms by law enforcement agencies. To believe in this protection is a usual mistake. As experience shows, the protection can be enhanced but never fulfilled.
However, maybe there is a possible solution.
The proposal is: everybody, who has the right to own a gun and have proper training, they can get any kind of gun, but may carry one AND should carry one gun only, which is a special one. This special gun is able to shoot one shot only before it becomes disabled. This gun should be available easily for those who can have a gun.
How can this proposal keep the benefits, and fix the problems of possessing firearms by the people?
If applying this proposal, no need to change the constitution or the laws of gun possession. All the reasons, which supported gun possession, can be maintained.
If a bad guy wants to commit a crime, then he or she must face the people carrying a gun. If somebody still uses a firearm, easy to recognize, even in a chaotic situation, who is the bad guy who needs to be eliminated: the one who threatens others or who shoots more than one shot.
Who shoots only one shot can be a bad guy too. It is an unavoidable case of this society. However, because of one shot, the damage is limited, and the bad guy must face armed good guys. And need to be bear in mind, that many other tools can be used as a gun than firearms anyway too. It is true that easier to shoot with a gun than use another tool as a weapon. However, to maintain the constitution, which provides the right to possess guns by anyone, this limited casualties by guns must be considered as collateral damage of the laws. The lawfulness of every shot which was taken must be judged by the authority, so those persons who used firearms unlawfully can be closed out from society. However, and it is the most important thing, society can protect themselves, no major damage can be made by the bad guys to the society.
If people may carry this special gun only, and many of them doing it, it can provide protection for society. If at least some people are present, who can and able to use his or her gun lawfully in the given situation for protection, it is the best way to protect from the bad guys.
With this simple proposal, all the reasons and benefits can be maintained to keep guns available for the people, and all the drawbacks can be handled in a satisfactory way, considering the conditions.
Pitfall
Even this possible solution may lead to a pitfall. The guns, which are widely present for the purpose of legality retention, may be used as a sentencing resource without using the proper official and necessary judgment process. Self-proclaimed judging may become widely used in society. Because self-proclaimed judging can turn against the community leaders as well -if the people think that leader committed an unlawful act against the community- this proposal may fail because of this circumstance.
Conclusion
Is this proposal a joke? How about then with the second amendment, which still valid in a developed society like the US is today?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
No comments