The Gun Debate in the US, Yes another British Opinion

So something that has been perceived to be done to Death by British people courtesy of Piers Morgan is the debate about gun law in the US of A. Before people start saying that I have no right to comment or know nothing about US culture or the US, just hear me out and you might be pleasantly surprised. I think that we should look at this objectively, and though the shootings at the school are tragic and ultimately make any argument emotional, it would be much more effective to be rational under the circumstances. So I think I would like to state first that Piers Morgan does not represent the British people, and in fact most of us despise him in any case. He also didn't tackle the argument from a sensible angle but, for a better expression, he put his foot in it...

But lets not be too harsh on Pierce. He has his own sensibilities and British misgivings about the world, and I would like to share these with you, just so you can perhaps start to empathise, or relate to what Piers Morgan was thinking. British gun law is very draconian; our national handgun team doesn't practice in the UK because they are legally obliged not to, they train in nearby European countries. Our police force are not all armed with firearms, only a select few in each force are permitted to use guns. You may well think that this is a ridiculous set of circumstances, but it has kept the mortality rate by the use of guns down; there were just 39 deaths by a firearm in the UK in 2011 compared to the US which had 9146 or near that figure. Even if you divided the US total by five because the UK population is a fifth of the US's it would be nowhere near. These harsh and stringent rules that have been in place for over a decade now came about through two incidences that shocked the majority of people in Great Britain; they were the Hungerford Massacre of 1987 and the Dunblane school massacre of 1996. After Hungerford most semi-automatic long barrelled weapons were criminalised, and after 1996 basically all handguns over a calibre of .22 were criminalised. This is the historic rhetoric that Piers Morgan brings to bear in his argument. Nowadays, the concept of owning a gun for the majority of people in the United Kingdom is laughable, only a select few who compromise largely of the upper class and the farming community own firearms, typically shotguns. So I hope I have shown where British people are coming from and this includes Pierce (unfortunately) when we talk about guns. However, just because we have our own prejudices and beliefs doesn't mean we should be forcing it upon anybody else.

America's relationship with guns is also historical. It was put in the constitution to allow its citizens the rights to bear arms against potential occupation, and to safeguard the people in the future from oppressive government which is a theme that runs through the constitution many times, in terms of limiting Presidential power etc. The Constitution is it at the very heart of American identity and is almost sacred in that respect. It has defined their culture and history across just over 200 years. I think the best way of saying this is that the gun law should be respected for its historical and cultural importance and its role in the formation and the continuation of America and her peoples. For many people the right to bear arms for defence against an overarching, potentially brutal government is as real now as it was 200 years ago and this fact should not be forgotten. Its easier to just say its for protection, and that plays a part but is a separate issue itself. The ability to form citizens militia and have firearms is important to many Americans. I can understand in this train of thought that the argument stating that automatic weapons are needed for this very reason can be persuading, that in this future counterfactual history weapons of equal calibre and quality to that used by the military is important in providing adequate defence for families. So I believe the argument for this side can be summarised into three main points; historically and culturally significant, for protection and safety and finally to combat potential circumstances in the future where weapons that do real damage are required. I believe that gun ownership is vey much tied to US traditions and culture and in that respect is a good thing, and there is a genuine need for guns in many places in the US.

But there is a nuance to the argument, I am not in favor of total free gun access. The gun lobby has wanted to keep the status quo and just keep these sorts of weapons away from the people in society who typically instigate these types of crime. But I think that though solid in theory, this will fall down in practice. I believe it opens up the doors to all sorts of Supreme Court challenges and effectively the same sort of tragic activity will continue. I would like to say now that Piers Morgan was not trying to 'take away your guns' as the Gun lobby put it recently. I believe he was referring just to automatic weapons, particularly assault weapons, and even if he wasn't he should have and should have known better. The problem is that assault weapons are designed for one purpose and one purpose only; that is to kill lots of people in a very short space of time. I cannot imagine any circumstances where you would need a machine gun for day to day life. If you want to shoot for sport or hunt, take a rifle or a shotgun, if you are living in a rural area and need protection carry a shotgun, if your a gang-banger take a light concealable handgun (semi or fully automatic at your preference), if you are a quiet, odd person who wants to murder a lot of innocents for no decernable reason take an assault rifle or carbine.  The laws that the Obama administration are looking at will not be mentioning taking away US citizens rights at all, its only limiting them. The USA will never have such stringent gun control laws as here in the UK, but in our modern, civilised planet that we inhabit; in the western world the carbine and the assault weapons should be put aside for military use only. To give an answer to the NRA's proposals that having more people with guns is a good idea, in short thats a terrible idea. What sort of a society needs ordinary people to be trained, armed with dangerous weapons? I thought you were America not some pseudo civil war destroyed country? Thats not the America I was taught about. If the training wasn't enough think about the mental screening, and then what is stopping this person taking this gun that they have been given and turning it on the people they are destined to protect? By proliferating guns and putting more of them in the hands of the ordinary people you are building on this pre-existing culture of guns that I talked about previously, but in a negative way. By arming more people, you make it normal instead of something that was designed to be a special tool, a special tool designed for death. I think thats the crux of the argument; guns are not toys, they are tools designed for an efficient purpose. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy guns, or enjoy the experience of hunting etc, but everything should be done in moderation, and if you take an assault weapon to hunt with, your not a very good shot now are you? And where would the fun be?

I hope that you have seen that I have tried to be balanced. I think that though I cannot relate and empathise totally, guns in America are part of US culture and should be protected; but there are instances where certain makes, models and variation of gun should be removed from the consumer platform for the safety of all. Thats all I am arguing, that certain guns be removed not all of them. At the end of the day its not me to be the judge on what happens in the USA and I am sure there will be some of you who are happy with that. But whatever happens there will be people across America and the rest of the world taking an interest, getting happy or disheartened by the future of this issue. Whatever the result, the American people will take it in their stride for better or for worse. I would like you to think as you go on one thought; if it were your son/daughter caught in the middle of another tragedy that we have seen recently, and you had the opportunity to change the law on the sale of these weapons that serve no purpose in the civilian world today, and did nothing, could you look yourself in the mirror and say 'I did the right thing'?