When a Knife Isn’t Enough

Two years ago, one of my good friends was shot in the stomach while walking to his car from a downtown bar. While he lay bleeding on the ground, the two suspects took his wallet, with a mere twenty dollars included, and his car stereo. Luckily, my friend was able to grab his phone from his pocket and call 911. He recovered well but the suspects were never found. A few weeks after his release from the hospital, we both took a concealed carry course. I can only imagine what the outcome would have been if my friend was able to reach for a handgun instead of his phone. The offenders would have been caught right then and there for sure. If he owned a gun and was carrying it at the time of the incident, he could have properly defended himself. While guns have proven to be a dangerous part of our society, I believe that they are necessary in the overall safety and well being of our Country. In “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns,” Molly Ivins begins her argument by stating she is not anti-gun, but rather pro-knife. Ivins states that, “A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness.” While Ivins’ sense of humor is very apparent, it does not do much to set the proper tone. It is obvious to anyone that both knives and guns can inflict extreme physical harm on a person. This being said, they are hardly equal. A knife does not stab someone with the pull of a trigger; it takes a little more effort than that. Unless thrown with a certain amount of skill, a knife cannot injure someone from a far distance. A gun however, can do these things with ease. Furthermore, Ivins’ idea that knifes promote fitness does nothing for a crippled individual, or someone too elderly to even walk. Knives may require people attempting to hurt one another to try harder, but they could not possibly be a valid comparison to the safety guns can provide. The Second Amendment states that, “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.” Ivins explains that she is for everything that the Second Amendment says, but does not think it was created to include young boys or religious cult members with the access to guns. Ivins adds to this point by implying that the Second Amendment clearly says that guns are for those who form part of a well-regulated militia, for example the National Guard. While it does include “a well-regulated militia,” it does not specify the military, police, or any other organization that could be considered well regulated. As a member of the Air National Guard, I do believe that guns are extremely necessary for a military unit and its functions. However, as a normal U.S. citizen, I also believe I have the right to bear arms in order to protect my family. The Second Amendment does not specify or put restrictions on any usage or owning of guns. It merely says that we, as citizens of a free state, have the right to own guns. These days, virtually anyone can get his or her hands on anything that could potentially inflict harm. A young boy can obtain a gun or any other weapon just as easily as a police officer, or other responsible adult. It fascinates me that the argument against the owning of guns tends to revolve around gang members, “crazy” people, or members of cults. These types of people have the ability to possess a gun and do wrong things with it just as much as anyone else does. Don’t get me wrong, I agree completely with not allowing criminals or potentially dangerous individuals the right to own a gun, especially those with a history of violence. However, the banning of all guns based on the actions of such criminals is absurd. Regulations of guns should be measured, kept at a minimum and aimed at criminals only. It should not be mandatory for a law-abiding citizen to register their guns. Rather, penalties should be increased for the use of a gun in the act of a crime. It does not take a lot of knowledge to realize that criminals prefer victims who are defenseless and unarmed. The right to possess and own a gun for the sole purpose of protection from criminal activity should never be questioned. Ivins’ includes in her discussion another comparison to guns that is almost as crazy as comparing them to knives. She piggybacks what a lot of people believe, in that guns are as equally dangerous as automobiles and should be treated the same. Yes, automobiles, depending upon how they are driven and who drives them can create a lot of damage. Automobiles are regulated by who is licensed to own them, how they are sold and restricted to the use of people who can properly operate them. The possession of guns already has the same principles. We are required to register our guns, criminals are restricted from owning them, and we regulate how they are sold in stores. Furthermore, there is no comparison in the fact that guns and automobiles create equal harm. The number of people that own automobiles far exceeds the number of households and people that own guns. Automobiles are out on the street daily, while most gun owners seldom handle their guns. There is a very simple and rational argument for guns in this society. They protect people. They allow the law-abiding citizen to have the ability to defend in a time of desperation. Anyone that argues that regular citizens do not have the proper training to own and handle a gun can pay for them to take a gun safety course. Yes, guns kill people. So do knives, automobiles, dogs, bombs, blunt objects, and anything else that can be used as a weapon. There will always be people that abuse guns and use them for the wrong reasons. There will also always be situations in which having a gun can save a life. Criminals will always be able to obtain a gun; therefore banning them will render the responsible citizen defenseless. When the time comes for me to defend myself from a gun, you better believe that I will have a bigger one pointed back at them, as well as a knife on my side.