Having A Gun
Very often in life I would find myself strongly disagreeing and upholding
the totally opposite point of view about the actions and behavior of those,
whose deeds seemed to me rather disadvantageous and harmful to the entire
community or society. These kind of actions were mostly coming from government
authorities, and quite obviously, there was not much that could have been done
in order to refute or override them. Therefore, not only once, the idea of
having adequate power and authority to ban these kind of pernicious practices,
would appeal to me.
For the purpose of decreasing the crime rate, that was the top concern of
the Ukrainian citizen, in 1994, some misguided politicians in government adopted
the legislation repealing the previous amendment and thus, abolishing the
constitutional right to own the handguns. Banning the sale of firearms seems to
me a most malicious and reckless deed, that instead of safeguarding and
protecting, endangers more the entire society.
The Government justified this act by saying that it would protect the
innocent citizens. But it failed to even entertain the notion that the enactment
of this law would come to protect the right of those who violate the rights of
others. It has never occurred to authorities that vicious criminals, in spite of
this legislation, will still manage somehow to get the firearms.
Innocent people, however, will suffer, because they will be less likely
to obtain handguns in order to protect themselves and their families. Therefore,
it would not be hard to imagine the carnage of the citizens, should there not be
any guns in their homes. The criminals would walk in at any time they desired,
they would take whatever they wanted, rape whom they wanted, and shoot whoever
The Government defended the enactment of this law by declaring that
people could not be secure as long as there would be handguns around; they could
not be secure when three million people in the country had shotguns stuck in the
glove compartment of their cars, bedside drawers, pockets and kitchen cabinets.
But could they be secure if some criminal would try to take away somebody’s car
under the threat, rob and rape somebody in the street or try to burglarize
somebody’s home, knowing that they would not have any guns to protect
themselves? The prompt and correct answer is “NO”.
The government was established to insure that none of our rights would
be violated or taken away. It seems to me that the government, by infringing the
right of people to keep and bear arms, has failed to provide its citizens with
privilege of safety in their homes or the right to be able to walk freely in
cities and towns. If I had enough authority and power to change the laws, I
would definitely attract and repeal this legislation, that seems to be rather
dangerous than protective. By doing so, I would bring safety, security and
freedom to the entire society, because my point is that criminals would obtain
the shotgun anyway, so why should not normal people have a chance to protect
themselves by having a little insurance under their bed in the form of a gun.