Freedom is not the right to harm, but the right to be free from harm.

  

   We look at the gun as a freedom, and owning it as a right. But, the right to own a gun comes only because it is seen as a protection. So, if the gun ceases to protect, it ceases to be a freedom to own. 

   Yes, the value of the gun is in that it defends its owner. That is its positive value. But, we must recognize that the gun also has negative values. When it falls into the hands of criminals, it comes a liability, not a benefit. It has a negative value, not a positive one. And, every time it accidentally goes off  and inadvertently kills someone, it is a liability, and has a negative value in the society where it exists. And, every time a person gets distressed or depressed and a gun sits nearby and that person picks up that gun and commits suicide, that gun is a liability.

   The gun has its value, but it also has its cost. 

   So, if the reason we have the right to own guns is that they protect, then if they are hurting more than helping, should we reconsider the right of owning guns?
   Perhaps we should reconsider not the right of everyone to own guns, but the right of those who could do harm.
   Freedom is not the right to harm, but the right to be free from harm. Yes, if there were no guns, there would still be knives and nooses and nails. You can make a weapon where you can find it. So, yes, killing would not end with a ban on guns. But, the killings would go down. The creation of the gun was the automation of murder. It made committing the act quicker and easier. It capacitated more deaths from a single attack. It may not have marked the advent of mass murders, but it was not far from that. Death never knew so many victims as it did with the invention of the gun.

  The invention of the gun was the hastening of death. The spillage of murder only increased.

  So, there is an argument to be made: that freedom is not in having a gun, but in others not having them. If we would be free from the harm of the gun, we would need to be free from people having the gun.

  Freedom is not the right to harm, but the right to be free from harm? The right to own a gun infringes on another person's right not to be killed by that gun. Do not misquote me. Do not take just a line here and there and leave them without the explanation I am offering. I am just saying that there is a right to not be killed. That is a right, isn't it? Shouldn't such a right exist?

   Being given the ability to inflict death is not a right. Killers should not have the right to have guns. If we can find a way to take them away from criminals -- not from everyone, but just from those who would harm -- we should.

   It is said that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.  But this gem of wisdom ignores a number of facts. First, if we outlaw guns in general, it does not mean we have to outlaw them from our officers. We do not have to disarm our police. Those fighting the outlaws can still be allowed to have guns. Second,we do not necessarily need to take guns from everyone as we outlaw them from some. If we so decide, we can take the guns only from those who display tendencies to harm. If we do this, the statement that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns becomes false, for everyone is still allowed to have guns except those who show tendencies to harm. Third, if we outlaw guns, fewer outlaws are going to have guns. No, we are not going to prevent all criminals from having guns, but we will reduce the number who have them.
   Convenience leads to abundance. If you make it easy to have guns, they will fill your land. If you make it difficult, they will be a sparser commodity. Even if we do not take them from everyone, but just from those with tendencies, we will reduce the number of guns in our land. And, we will reduce the convenience of criminals to own them.

   So, there is good argument for closing the gun from ownership to some. What if we banned the gun from those who shouldn't have it but not from those who should? That may sound like an impossible endeavor, but should we not try?

   What if we take the gun out of the hand of those who threaten? What if every time someone makes an earnest threat of harming another person, that is cause to remove that gun from their hands?

  Prior restraint? If you would be free, you must live the laws of freedom. If you threaten, you lose your rights. We do not need to wait until you kill someone before we take away your right to kill. If you threaten, that is evidence you could do harm. If you would keep your freedom to own a gun, do not do the things that will get it taken away.
   An absence of laws can be seen as the presence of freedom, but it is not always so. We might perceive that a law taking away guns is wrong because it takes away freedom, while actually that law enhances freedom of the many while only depriving it of him who should not have it. Laws need to be made to protect freedom as often as they are avoided for fear that freedom will be lost.  Laws are the caretakers of freedom as often as they are the assaulters of it.

   Consider on the thought we began with, that freedom is not the right to harm, but the right to be free from harm. The right of a person not to become a victim trumps the right of another to be in position to victimize. As it is said, One person's rights end where the other person's nose begins.
  As long as gun owners have more rights than those harmed by guns, harm will continue to come. If we, as a nation, do not learn to respect to the rights of the victims, we will continue to have an abundance of  victims among us.