Banning Guns Or Are We Banning Autonomy?

When thinking of any type of catastrophic event, especially one where peoples lives have either been endangered or taken, I am always met with a great sorrow. This accurately describes my feelings toward the more recent event of this nature, the Douglas High School shooting. From these feelings and what I have been observing from the media, I was inspired to write this article to elaborate on the actual issue and situation at hand. With little surprise we find the media and other news sources are like a disruptive cloud covering the sun on a summer day. How can one discern what is truly going on when there is no focus on what that specifically is? I am simply trying to convey the plausible options that offer the most respect and concern for the matter of safety and well being for everyone.

Gun Banning Will Not Work

The whole media exploded with this notion that banning guns with be the ultimate “end all” solution to preventing future shooting tragedies. If this were an actual affective measured, one would think that prohibition, the war on drugs, book banning tactics, etc. would also be affective measures in reaching a similar goal; however, these methods were subjected to complete failure. Yet here we have the liberal political party roaring nonsense of banning guns, calling guns unnecessary for protection, and so on. Trying to follow the logic behind these statements is honestly daunting. Meanwhile, on the conservative end the people look to their government to honor and acknowledge their individual rights…

Placing a Ban on firearms and allowing governmental imposition on yet another facet of our freedom will do nothing to fortify our safety. No matter what type of firearm one wishes to acquire, the means of acquiring it will be always be present! The banishment would only change the ways in which the firearm can be acquired.

With that being said, it should be more than apparent that banning guns is but a futile solution that would do little to nothing as a preventive method. All that all it will be doing is denying persons the option to protect themselves as they see fit. Which should be an option in any time, place, or situation. A distorted perception, I find, is one that believes in “Utopia” were having the means of protecting oneself is ludicrous since all “dangerous” amenities have been banned.

Granting The State/ Government The Power to Take Away Viable Means of Protection Is Problematic

Anyone who is seeking individual liberty already has the notion that both entities: the state and government, should not be the only ones who have access to firearms in terms of protection and/or self defense. As this would directly hinder you as an individual in terms of your safety. As I mentioned in the article already, the logic behind “ banning” guns to me is completely mind numbing. I put the quotations around banning because even though for us the guns would be banned, the government would be inconveniently exempt. Now, set in place would be a situation were a entity that is already using force, violence, coercion to achieve its goals would be armed. It’s unsettling to think of such a situation. I say that this is problematic because as an individual who seeks liberty and voluntary based interactions, it would essentially negate any progression towards those ideals.

Aside from the point of safety in terms of self defense, we can also look at the efficiency of law enforcement. Perhaps more lives would be protected and thus saved if a person, present in the situation, could take action. This thought or potential solution becomes annihilated if a citizen can not carry a weapon that would be used for protection of themselves as well as others.

There Are Solutions That Do Not Entail Imposing On An Individual's Rights

There is no denying that following through with banning guns would be a complete obstruction to the rights of the individual; however, there are other viable solutions that would eradicate the hysteria of guns being in the hands of the wrong individual. Often the wrong individual would be considered one who is suffering from a mental and/or physical condition which if or when triggered would be dangerous if they possessed a fire arm.

The first solution would be a private institution that would be established to offer education, medical examination, practical instruction, and certification for individuals looking to possess a fire arm. I say that this should be a privatized institution because it would be free from state regulations. Again, the act of subordinate permits, data logging, and right restriction would be eradicated by the latter measure of privatization. Allowing the best scenario for individual liberty to persevere. None the less, this institution would provide and be responsible for ensuring that the individual is fit to be armed. This would be a voluntary interaction between the institution and individual unlike the involuntary regulations and control of the state

In concurrence with the last solution, another notion would be removing gun free zoning. It’s not an irrational thought to determine that a gun free zone would be among the first targets of a malicious armed individual. Thus, the situation is then created where defense/ protection are needed, while the very means of this defense/ protection is banned from the premises. Removing the zone would directly allow for defense/ protection when needed versus being in an a position of incompetence while waiting for “authority forces”.

Between the proper institution being accessible to individuals, and removing effective-less banning that hinders the ability for the individual to protect and/or defend themselves I am confident that we find resolve in the capability of handling any future events that could occur.

Events Like These Trigger Authoritarian Manipulated Response In Society, Let’s Break That Cycle!

Kind of a Segway into a different direction, when looking at the aftermath of events like mass shootings, we see the almost immediate response of societal conditioning. This is directly related to the end all goal of the system at large. Executing total control, holding the position of supreme power.

In a sense I guess it would be considered a distraction, the events that occur that trigger such a hysterical/ terrified response are used to cloud perception as well as judgment. In that state it is much easier for corporate agendas ( the agenda of the government as it is just a giant corporation) to take action.

I am merely suggesting that instead of responding in a manner that they have studied, subliminally implemented, and predicted we respond in a way that takes a hold of our individual liberty. By doing this, we will prevent not only their prosperity in their wickedness, but hinder the ability for future catastrophe.

If we all as individuals harness our liberty, united we will come together to live our best lives! The sadness we face when these tragic events happen perhaps can be prevented by enacting the alternative solutions presented in the article. Let us not be distracted, but focused on how we the people, who are effected most by these events, can and will prevent them from happening in the future! Peace, Love, and Light!

~ The greatest danger to the State is independent intellectual criticism ~

-Murray N. Rothbard