In various debates, individual's position about a certain issue depends on personal experience with the subject of debate or most likely lack of one. In this context, debate concerning bearing arms will be discussed. The aim of this essay is to explain why the right of bearing arms is essential for human rights support and why this right should be protected. The main arguments used are supported by the article of Wheeler Samuel.
Key words: bearing arms, violence, human rights, self-defense, government.
In Protection of Self-Defense
In various debates, individual's position concerning a specific issue depends greatly on personal experience with the debated subject or most likely lack of one. In this context, people who have never experienced an assault or have never been to New York and big cities of the United States are likely to consider that the right to bear arms is harmful for society and their safety on streets. On the other hand, position concerning certain matters might depend on a person's character and self-perception. In this context, an individual might be likely to suggest that he/she has a right for self-defense and how that person was prepared for the self-defense is his/hers personal matter, which should be protected by the constitution. In the framework of these considerations, the aim of this essay is to show why the right of bearing arms is crucial for the support of human rights and why this right should be protected. The main arguments used in this essay are based on the article by Wheeler Samuel.
First of all, irrespective of diverse aspects of human life, which are protected by government in the framework of human rights, there is no government which can predict and this prevent unlawful violation of these rights and eliminate existence violence and crime. Thus, government cannot be always there to fulfill its obligations within the "social contract" with people. In other words, "the right not to be unjustly assaulted qualifies as a 'human right'" (Wheeler, 2001, p.19). Until a certain extent, if a government is not capable of preventing one's death or significant injury of one's health, it should be done by an individual himself. Anyone would agree that such argument is rationale and appropriate for any debate. On the other hand, when bearing arms is mentioned, their opinions change.
The justification for bearing arms is based on the same logical assumptions. Looking at the issue from the point of self-protection and no intention of causing harm to anyone else willingly and on purpose, the rationale of bearing arms is in an individual's desire to survive and live according to the natural laws which were not given nor provided by government or society. Thus, it is an instinctual matter of the human psyche to protect oneself from injury, and firearms are simply an instrument of defense. Wheeler comments on this subject in the following way:
"The core "self-defense" argument for right to bear arms derives from a fundamental
right to preserve oneself from harm, conjoined with empirical facts about technology,
the reliability of police protection, and reasonably expected threats"
(Wheeler, 2001, p.20).
Another substantial argument is that most of cons of bearing arms are situational. They cannot overcome a crucial individual right of self-defense. For instance, the argument that bearing arms might result in more violence than lack of it is based on a situation when a victim in possession of gun might not be able to use it properly or be overwhelmed by emotions and use it under states effect. This case is quite situational and, in fact, such cases are possible, but they do not refer to the essence of arms bearing, but rather to initial psychological verification of person's psychological stability and tendency to use violence in general. Inclination of some people to overreact or have criminal inclinations has nothing to do with giving other people an opportunity and means for self-defense.
Another argument is that banning of arms bearing and possession would not automatically mean that less fire arms would be on the streets and more human lives would be saved. In this context, supporters of arms control forget that most of the fire arms used criminal activities are obtained by illegal means or bought on the black market. Therefore, while a ban of bearing arms would decrease a number of fire arms on streets and public places, it would not result in less criminal activity and use of guns. It would only leave more people helpless and defenseless facing criminal reality of contemporary society. In this context, an individual remains alone to deal with unlawful activity, and the only thing left to hope for is a law enforcement response to that activity (Wheeler, 2001). Although this argument is not intended to undermine efficiency of the law enforcement in fighting crime, from the legal perspective, the police are usually entitled to act only when the crime is already taking place and someone managed to call the police to the crime scene. For a victim, it usually means that the crime has already taken place. It could not be stopped immediately and definitely was not prevented (Wheeler, 2001). On the other hand, bearing of arms gives an individual a chance for self-defense; it provides a victim with means for survival. From societal and legal perspective, self-defense with fire arms decreases the severity of crime conducted. It can save life and decrease a number of injuries imposed. In its turn, the police would have to deal with less grave crime and society would have one of its members alive, in better health and more self-confident, which is another quite important for social stability and healthy functioning.
Reference
Wheeler, S.C. (Spring 2001). Gun Violence and Fundamental Rights. Criminal Justice Ethics,
20(1), 19-24.
