How Alarming Are Arms For Defence?
Is the only way
to stop a bad guy with a gun giving a good guy a gun? Michael Moore said, “You do not have the right to take
another human's life, unless it's in strict self-defence.” However, how often
are civilian owned guns purely used for self defence? And what exactly
qualifies as self defence?
This was the main pivot of discussion for countries on
the third day of the United Nations Security Council committee. Countries
allied themselves into blocs aligning themselves on either side of the rich
debate- should civilians be allowed arms, and if yes, on what grounds?
On one side, strongly against civilian arms, were the
delegates of the countries of China, Canada, Switzerland, the Philippines, DPRK and France. The delegates of
these countries tackled questions and justifications from their opposition- the
delegates of the countries of Afghanistan, Serbia, Israel, Somalia, Sweden,
Czech Republic and the USA.
The delegates
standing for the allowance of guns in civilian hands proposed their main cause
as self defence. The delegate of Afghanistan said, “Guns are necessary for protection
when the military is not aware of the location of the anti-state actors.” The
delegate stressed on the fact that the delegate’s country faced strict hazards
and constant threats from terrorists and anti state oppressors, and required
safety and comfort, which would be due provided if they owned a gun.
The delegate of France,
who represented a country strictly against civilian ownership of arms, put out
an interesting point. Pointing out the fact that the right to life was one of
the United Nations main clauses, the delegate said, “How can guns be used for
self defence without killing people, and violating the right to life?” the
delegate also stated that civilian guns could be used against the government,
or even against other civilians. The delegate mentioned the negative effects of
civilian arms seen in the countries of Somalia and the USA, and called for the
ban on civilian arms, making a possible exception to the citizens of failed
nations.
The delegate of
Czech Republic defended the allegations of civilian guns used for mass
shootings, by stating that majorly only illegally acquired arms were used for
violent activities. The delegate argued that by legally issuing guns, the
safety of the citizens would be better protected.
The delegate of Canada
argued that guns were absolutely unsafe, and immediate steps would need to be
taken to ensure the protection of civilians against gun related crimes. The delegate
suggested various measures such as GPS-tracked guns, unbreakable storehouses
for arms, and extensive background checks.
The delegates of
Somalia and Uruguay stated that oppressors and non state actors may always find
a way to obtain arms for their illicit purposes, and that citizens needed a way
to protect themselves against these oppressors. They called for the safety of
women and children, and said that using guns was the best method of self defence
in these cases.
Steadily arguing
for civilian gun ownership, the delegate of the United States of America
stressed on the necessity of self defence and the usage of guns for it. The delegate
stated that citizens should have the same rights to gun as do the army. He called
for laws and regulations regarding the illegal distribution of arms, but
strongly stood for their use for self defence.
The delegate of
China claimed that guns were rarely used by civilians for self defence. The delegate
suggested that taking away guns from the hands of the offenders would be a much
more effective solution than handing guns to possible victims, and claimed that
handing guns as a means of self defence could lead to the civilians using the guns
for violent purposes.
Though the
countries had similar views on regulation and methods of check like background checks,
and gun courses, they clearly had two contrasting opinions on the issue of
civilian gun ownership. It was noticed that countries with greater fear of
attack from non state actors and terrorist groups
All of the
delegates had their own points of information in support to their claims, and
stood ground supporting their respective causes.
(Character
Analysis, CNN UNSC)
Comments
Post a Comment