Is It Right to Bear Arms?
In the two essays, "The Right to Arms," written by Edward Abbey, and "Fifty Million Handguns," written by Adam Smith, the authors express their feelings towards firearms. Abbey is more pro-guns; therefore, he feels that the people should be able to buy or possess any kind of gun and shouldn't be restricted to that right. On the other hand, Smith is anti-gun and disagrees with owning a firearm, mostly handguns. Both authors have good reasoning and strong support to back up their feelings, but Smith's essay is more convincing than Abbey's because of the way he used his own personal reasoning and good credibility. The three things that I felt were most important to look at were Abbey's and Smith's reasoning, credibility, and evidence.
"The Right to Arms" is an essay written by Edward Abbey about "the right to own, keep, and bear arms." Abbey expresses that we should stand up for our freedom to own a firearm and is opposed to gun control. He says, "I don't think I am a gun fanatic" (3), and explains that it would be wrong to sell guns to children, the insane, or to criminals, but anybody else should have the right to own a firearm no matter what kind. When summing up his essay, Abbey implies "an armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny" (3). He thinks that if guns are banned, only the government and a few outlaws will possess them, so Abbey says, "I intend to be among the outlaws" (3).
Adam Smith wrote "Fifty Million Handguns." In his essay, Smith feels that handguns are a problem in our society and they "have only one purpose" (95). Smith tells about how he was in the army, and even though he has a lot of experience with firearms, he has strong feelings about people who use them, too. He writes in his essay that a college friend of his was shot and killed by a burglar after being caught snooping in his home. Then he talks about John Lennon's murder, which had happened just a few days after his friend's murder. That's when Smith demanded that something be done. He did some research on the representatives of the pro-guns and the anti-guns. The pro-gun group argued that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" (96), meaning that we need to change. The anti-gun group argued back saying, "people kill people, but guns make it easier" (97). Smith concludes his essay by asking the question, "What makes us different from the Japanese and the British and the Canadians?" (99). He points out "they are not armed, as we are, yet their streets and houses are far safer" (99).
In both essays, the authors have their reasoning but Smith's is much more believable. Abbey's biggest reason for being for guns is the simple fact that it is our right as a citizen in America to have one. Abbey gives many examples in his essay of different nations that aren't allowed to possess any weapons; therefore, he believes that because we live in one of the few free countries that allows us the right to own firearms we should fight to keep them. Abbey feels that we have the right to feel safe in our homes and that is why he expresses that an armed citizenry is the best defense. The reasons that Abbey gives are understandable but not very convincing. He should put more feeling into it, or describe his reasoning in better detail to convince us that we should fight for our right to possess firearms.
On the other hand, Smith has a different opinion about the whole deal. He believes that a gun control law should be passed. Smith's main reason for being anti-gun is the fact that there are too many murders taking place in America. One of Smith's college friends, Michael Halberstam, was murdered and a few days later John Lennon, too. That's why Smith has such strong feelings towards handguns. He says, "handguns have only one purpose" (95), and that it is "appalling that we had about ten thousand handgun deaths last year alone" (97). Smith explains in his essay that people shouldn't even keep a handgun in their house for protection. Handguns cause more danger from having accidents or kids getting ahold of them than the gun actually defending you in need. Smith does bring up a good point: why is it that other countries aren't armed yet their streets and homes are safer? He makes you think. Smith's reasoning is very convincing. He shows he did research and uses his own personal experience that helps me understand where his reasons for being against guns are coming from.
Personal credibility is important when writing an essay. Both Abbey and Smith have credibility, but Smith's essay seems to have more of it and it was also easier to relate to. Abbey does own a few guns and is a retired hunter, but he doesn't say he has any real background knowledge with guns. He is also a member of the National Rifle Association, which to me means he must know something about them but he doesn't explain in detail how much. He says himself that he is not a gun fanatic, but he is very concerned about his right to own them. Abbey needs to make it clearer to the reader what he knows about guns and explain how he is involved with the NRA to make his credibility more believable.
Since Smith was in the Army and was trained how to use a gun, he has to have some credibility. When Smith's friend was shot, I'm sure he went through a lot of pain. He even says that he was "in high anger, right after death" (96). Most of Smith's credibility comes from the amount of research he did. He talked with both pro-gun and anti-gun representatives. He got a feel of how both sides see the situation and still strongly believes in being against guns. He also did research on crime statistics and talked to many police officers. It seems that Smith has more knowledge, research, and personal experiences than Abbey, which gives him better credibility.
Another important aspect when writing an essay is the amount of evidence you have to back up the feelings for your opinion. After reading both of the essays, I didn't think Abbey had very much evidence. In his first few paragraphs, he wrote about medieval England and how they weren't able to possess weapons, that if they were caught with them they would be strung up and left for the crows. He also mentioned that in Nazi Germany the private citizens weren't allowed to carry weapons and were also killed if caught. Abbey talks about different nations that don't have the right to possess firearms and then goes on to say how we do. He doesn't speak to any experts nor does he have any other information to back up his reasons for wanting guns, except for the fact that it is our right. If he showed more research and gave some examples, his evidence would have been stronger.
Smith, on the other hand, has a lot of evidence. He seems to have done his research. He talked to representatives of the pro-gun groups, anti-gun groups, and different police officers. Smith gives a good example of why guns can be harmful by writing about the murders of his close friend and John Lennon. Also, he states some of the crime statistics that show that America has a higher crime rate compared to other countries due to our number of handguns.
After reading both Abbey and Smith's essays, it clearly shows that Smith's essay has better reasoning due to his amount of research and personal experience, which proves that more guns don't mean less violence; statistically it means more. Abbey's essay isn't as convincing due to his lack of reasoning. He uses little evidence and does a poor job expressing his opinion on why we should bear arms. So, my question is how do we protect ourselves from tyranny without the right to bear arms, but how do we keep our right to bear arms when so many people are taking advantage of them?
Works Cited
Abbey, Edward. “The Right to Arms.” The Mercury Reader. Comp. Scott Stankey. Needham Heights: Pearson, 2000. 1-3.
Smith, Adam. “Fifty Million Handguns.” The Mercury Reader. Comp. Scott Stankey. Needham Heights: Pearson, 2000. 94-99.