The Freedom of an Armed Society: Should Everyone Be Legally Armed?

Name:
Professor’s Name:
Course:
Date:
Should Everyone Be Legally Armed?
DeBrabander, Firmin. The Freedom of an Armed Society. The New York Times, 16 Dec 2012, https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/the-freedom-of-an-armed-society/. Accessed November 14, 2017.
Summary
In his article The Freedom of an Armed Society, DeBrabander Firmin seems to make some great points with regards to the rhetoric that everyone should be armed or exercise their right to bear arms. His piece takes or adopts a somber mood because it came after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. However, he immediately delves deeper into the gun ownership conversation and offers his piece. Firmin explicitly states that “an armed society – especially as we prosecute it at the moment in this country – is the opposite of civil society.” Despite stating the above, Firmin also notes how gun sales have skyrocketed over the years as more people find owning guns rational and ‘safe.’ Moreover, states all over the US seem comfortable to allow their people to not only own guns but also carry concealed weapons. He further mentions how states are in the process of passing motions to allow guns in colleges with the aim of keeping and ensuring safety to students.
The US as Firmin writes has always been unique and unsurprisingly distinctive in adopting some laws. Gun and violence, for example, are directly associated with the independence of the country and therefore, help to explain the current infatuation with gun ownership. Organizations such as NRA have been vocal in pushing and advocating for gun ownership and seem to often come up with statements such as “an armed society is a polite society.” this they hope will implore and push more citizens into exercising their rights to own guns. However, Firmin cautions that the above is not reminiscent of a civil society and that it infringes on the true values of freedom.
Unlike what gun rights advocates seem to believe, Firmin is adamant that guns can and will never provide a country or its citizens with the ultimate insurance of freedom. He further warns how gun ownership will slowly retreat to extreme individualism thus fostering “a society of atomistic individuals, isolated before power – and one another.” He closes his piece and uses Egypt as his example to show that masses do not necessarily require guns to voice their opinions or to “exercise and secure their freedom.”
Analysis
Firmin does make some good points and ones which will rub the pro-gun ownership party badly. The truth, people have indeed been buying more guns than they used to in the past. Whether people are feeling unsafe or the talk of guns simply makes some people want to own some is simply unclear. However, one fact still stands, an armed society will indeed impose or infringe on the values and statutes of a civil society. While mass shootings are widely propagated, people need to understand that they are but a small portion of the gun story. It is true that some people are genuinely scared and therefore, believe that having a gun will help them combat this fear. However, borrowing from Firmin’s argument, one is forced to ask whether enshrining guns in public life is the answer or whether the country will only be treading on shaky and unstable ground.
The story of gun ownership is always packaged well with the aim of attracting more people and supporters. However, Firmin carefully but rationally brings the issue of freedom into question and seems to believe that public arming will indeed infringe on the very principles organizations like NRA and the Republican party seem to want to protect. He carefully develops his story and finally depicts the danger of gun ownership and public arming by showing how it will impair freedom. Firmin’s approach is indeed unique and helps to further the conversation while also posing some of the mostly ignored questions and obvious insights regarding the issue of guns.
Douthat, Ross. Why Gun Control Loses, and Why Las Vegas Might Change That. 3 Oct, 2017, /2017/10/03/opinion/vegas-gun-control-shooting.html. Accessed November 14, 2017.
Summary
Ross begins his article, Why Gun Control Loses, and Why Las Vegas Might Change That, by stating how he is tired of the old rhetoric that the country does not engage enough in the gun conversation. He is tired of the numerous debates the country has had and seem to believe that adopting new regulations will not change anything because killers will always find ways to acquire guns. Ross believes that the gun control activists are slowly losing ground and compared to the 90s, they have backpedaled and seem to lack vision and course of action.
He bases his article on two viewpoints: one is that “gun ownership is a form of expressive individualism no less than the liberties beloved in blue America”; two is that gun control activists seem to lack a clear goal or purpose when it comes to advocating for newer and better gun control regulations. On the latter, Ross states that the gun control activists seem to often propose laws which “lack any direct connection to the massacres” which unsurprisingly seem to be the backbone of their argument.
When it comes to the common argument that mass shooting perpetrators often use backdoors to acquire guns, Ross states that a majority of them use the legal means to acquire guns. He attacks bans such as the Clinton-era assault weapons ban which he states had zero effect on murder rates. At one point he states that “in a free soc...