The recent act of terrorism in which fourteen people were killed and at least fifty injured while watching The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado has, as expected, sparked debate over the Second Amendment, which protects the right of people to keep and bear arms. Some claim that none of this would have happened, if it had been illegal for private citizens to own guns; others claim that none of this would have happened, if everyone at the theater owned a gun: then the insane gunman would have been incapacitated or killed before he could cause so much damage. The fact is that the average citizen already can obtain a gun license, and therefore any of the people who went to the theater could have had a gun on his person. But insanity is unpredictable, and the average person would go insane trying to anticipate every potential act of insanity as he went along his quotidian routine. None of the movie-goers would have foreseen what happened: if they had, they would either have not gone to the movie at all, or would have carried guns with them to protect themselves and their families. Now imagine what the situation might have been like, if everyone had carried a gun with him. The moment the mad gunman opened fire, a hundred or so people would be ready with their weapons. But whom would they shoot? Anyone could be the terrorist, since everyone had a gun. And in addition to the fourteen people who might be killed anyway, several lives could be taken, because they each would have been suspected of being the culprit. You might argue that the gunman would not have attempted something like that, if he had known that everyone around him owned a gun, and could shoot him dead. But everyone around him could have owned a gun under the present circumstances. The law does not prohibit it. The gunman could not have known whether the people around him were armed or unarmed when he opened fire, and thus it is assumed that he, like most madman, does not care. (One must be wary of them who do not fear death.)
Those who are of the opinion that making the possession of arms illegal would reduce violent crimes need only look at the results of Prohibition and the regulation of drugs for contradiction. Making guns illegal would only prevent those who would not commit violent crimes acquiring them. Those who intended to do evil would find illegal ways of acquiring weapons.
The United States has excellent security at airports, etc., which means that they are good at defending against external threats. But they do not seem to realize that not everyone who lives within their borders is sane or good, and have thus not provided any means for people to defend themselves against these malevolent elements. Perhaps they should have security checks, like in India, in every public building, mall, park, etc. in addition to amending their policies on gun control.
This brings me to a related topic: capital punishment. There are those who hold that capital punishment is immoral under any circumstances: id est, no human being has the right to take the life of another human being. (This has several loopholes. What if a terminally ill patient wished to end his life because he could not bear to continue suffering? Assisted suicide, etc.) Certainly, in the event of a mistake, the convicted cannot be released. Which is why I think capital punishment ought to be reserved only for the most heinous crimes, in which there is no possibility of extenuation or exculpation, such as terrorism (the above-mentioned as well as others). The purpose of imprisonment is twofold: to give the convicted a chance to repent and reform, and to protect the innocent from his madness. Immurement is primarily punitive. But there are those whose crimes are so heinous that punishment is inadequate, and on whom the chance to repent would be wasted. There is no room for them in society. For them there can only be death.
Death is neither malevolent nor merciful: death simply is.
Those who are of the opinion that making the possession of arms illegal would reduce violent crimes need only look at the results of Prohibition and the regulation of drugs for contradiction. Making guns illegal would only prevent those who would not commit violent crimes acquiring them. Those who intended to do evil would find illegal ways of acquiring weapons.
The United States has excellent security at airports, etc., which means that they are good at defending against external threats. But they do not seem to realize that not everyone who lives within their borders is sane or good, and have thus not provided any means for people to defend themselves against these malevolent elements. Perhaps they should have security checks, like in India, in every public building, mall, park, etc. in addition to amending their policies on gun control.
This brings me to a related topic: capital punishment. There are those who hold that capital punishment is immoral under any circumstances: id est, no human being has the right to take the life of another human being. (This has several loopholes. What if a terminally ill patient wished to end his life because he could not bear to continue suffering? Assisted suicide, etc.) Certainly, in the event of a mistake, the convicted cannot be released. Which is why I think capital punishment ought to be reserved only for the most heinous crimes, in which there is no possibility of extenuation or exculpation, such as terrorism (the above-mentioned as well as others). The purpose of imprisonment is twofold: to give the convicted a chance to repent and reform, and to protect the innocent from his madness. Immurement is primarily punitive. But there are those whose crimes are so heinous that punishment is inadequate, and on whom the chance to repent would be wasted. There is no room for them in society. For them there can only be death.
Death is neither malevolent nor merciful: death simply is.
0 comments :
Post a Comment