To Bear or Not To Bear

Elijah Owens, Reporter

   The question on gun laws permitting bans, restrictions, or unlimited access remains unanswered. Gun rights prove as a controversial, politically divisive issue that leaves everyone scratching their heads as to where politicians stand with the current state of the country.

   Ultimately, finding unity through diversity is arguably the best way to stop this age-old feud. Quite simply, the pros and cons, limitations and implications of gun control (or the lack thereof) needs further consideration. Citizens should scrutinize the right to bear arms with statistics on how guns affect death, whether or not checks and balances need restoration, and more importantly a few solutions that potentially find common ground as a happy medium.

   Moreover, contrary to popular belief, more people die from suicide than homicide. According to UCDavis Health, even though, “13,958 people in the U.S. died from firearm homicide, accounting for 35.1% of total deaths from firearms” in 2018, approximately “Sixty-one percent of deaths from firearms in the U.S. are suicides.” To clarify, 24, 432 people died from firearm-based suicide as of 2018. This debunks the myth that most people die from homicide and clearly outlines how mental health weighs more importance and precedence than what alse of the political spectrum each individual falls. Thus, provided that guns demonstrate more hazardous outcomes to firearm owners than those victimized by said owners, firearms mustn’t bear when in direct conflict with one’s mental and physical health.

   Furthermore, in theory of democracy, the country enables checks and balances in more ways than one bears a firearm. However, in reality, this doesn’t hold up to its initial premise. As a result, instead of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government exercising equal power, the balance of power oftentimes stays out of balance. For instance, in Utah, the state now thinks it can override local laws and regulations on gun control and/or permission. This raises red flags as it treats the local as less important, more expendable than the state and by extension the federal government. In the end, whether or not people should bear arms not only depends on their state of mind but also what serves their environment best (i.e. hunting, protection, target practice).

   Above all, finding a perfect solution means realizing that no such thing exists. All that does exist, including the right to or not to bear arms, pertains to making imperfect progress. In a sense, one might argue that perfect imperfection works best. However, one of the best solutions include embracing a diverse set of rules and regulations that varies based on various socioeconomic factors in need of illumination, scrutiny, depth, tact, and care. Whether one categorizes as trigger-happy or firmly against firearms, balance must retain the first and foremost priority. Arguing over belief systems proving rigid at best not only aggravates the pre-existing situation but also adds more fuel to the fire. Essentially, in this way, water is needed for all parties to bear.

   No solution sets in stone. Nonetheless, people from all walks of life must get real with themselves to see what works best for themselves, their environment, and, if possible, the world at large. Then again, perhaps our perspective needs amendment more than the Second Amendment by itself. Whether one bears arms or not remains a prerogative. After all, progress starts with every individual as each person must evaluate themselves, their life circumstances, and the threat firearms pose (or the lack thereof). It takes one person at a time. After all, when one knows best on how to positively serve themselves, this yields positive results for all the rest. Indeed, the priority must include people doing what serves them best.