Gun Control. Is it right?

I hate guns. I can’t stand them. Yet I’ve never handled one in my life. Nor have I seen one in person. Where does this hatred come from? Maybe its due to the fact that in Australia, where I live, guns have been banned since 1996. This was a consequence of the deadliest massacre committed by a non-government entity in Australia’s history at Port Arthur, Tasmania.

It’s logical at face value. A man-made weapon was used to kill many innocent people. So the flawed logic dictates if the weapon is banned, the killings will stop. I wonder if the same logic will be used for knives, or aeroplanes, or white trucks?

After 20 years of living in a society that has banned guns, I’ve come to the conclusion that this approach isn’t only the most stupid, but it’s fundamentally immoral.

Let me explain by giving what may appear at first to be an unrelated hypothetical.

You live in a house that you’ve spent most of your life paying off the mortgage. It has a beautiful long drive-way that you can fit 3 or 4 cars bumper to bumper. Now imagine your neighbour starts parking her car in your driveway, thereby blocking any car already parked in the drive-way, or preventing any other car from using the drive-way. What do you do?

You go to your neighbour and request the car be moved. Let’s imagine she doesn’t move it. Let’s imagine, that when you report your neighbour to the police, they tell you that not only can you not force her to move her car, but you must accommodate her everytime she wants to park in your drive-way. So the question becomes; do you own your drive-way if your neighbour has sole discretion as to how it is used? Or more broadly, does a person have a right they cannot defend?

My response is ‘no’. A person does not have a right if that right can not be defended.

In the example of the drive-way, the right relates to property rights, and if the neighbour can use your drive-way when ever she wants, while inhibiting your ability to defend your right to the property, then it’s no longer your drive-way.

Based on the fundamental understanding that a right is not held if it can’t be defended, let’s overlay this general rule to the right to life. This right is recognised by the constitution of many countries, and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (article 3). If it’s understood that humans have the right to life, they must be able to be able to defend that right.

In most situations, where life is threatened, what method would be most appropriate in defending that right to life? Relying on the police to defend that right? Calling the emergency line? Carrying a gun? Switch blade? Knowledge of Karate? Jiu Jitsu? The answer is anyone’s guess. The reasonable response depends on the situation. Yet the Australian government prevents law abiding citizens from choosing a gun as a method of defending their right to life. The gun laws even prevent Australians from possessing a gun in their own home. The predominant lawful position for all Australian citizens is to rely on the Police.

The government has essentially dictated that they know best, and that using a gun in order to defend your right to life is not appropriate. That responsibility has been assigned to the Police. This approach in itself creates another problem. It creates a monopoly. And most governments around the world have a dedicated department in reducing the risk of monopolies. One would think the most inappropriate monopoly to have in a society would be a monopoly on the defence to life. Yet here we are in Australia, living with a monopoly on defending one of the most, if not the most important human rights.

So when the government/mainstream media raises the issue of gun control, think about how that impacts on your ability to defend your right to life. Then consider whether that inability is worth the so-called benefits the government/mainstream media would have you believe.