Should We Make Arms for Everybody?

Oleksandr HUBENKO, editor-in-chief, Practical Psychology and Social Work magazine:

“The question of whether we should allow our citizens to purchase and bear the arms is complicated and requires primarily social and cultural analyses. For instance, Switzerland doesn’t face this problem at all. There the reserve military can keep their arms and uniforms at home, and nobody worries. As for Ukraine, it is too early to even think about this. The reason is the social and economic instability along with the lack of preparedness of a part of our citizens to observe elementary social standards and respect for the law. Arms can be used freely only on the condition that the society has centuries-old traditions of abiding the law. Ukraine has no such tradition; on the contrary, our people are used to distrusting the authorities and breaking the law. Besides, it is noteworthy that Ukrainians lack self-control. Factors like neuroses and psychopathologies of society make one’s attitude toward such liberal decisions even more cautious. Speaking about the level of the Ukrainians’ aggressiveness, it remains rather high. This is conditioned primarily by negative traditions like, for instance, confrontation of a person and the state. Unfortunately, one can often see mutual tension and disrespect between these two sides. One of the sources of the social aggression is anomie, a state of social consciousness rooted in disappointment in one’s ideals and lack of trust for everybody and everything. This state is characterized by negativism, suspicion, and hostility in relations with others. Now the authorities should take measures aimed at increasing the trust in politicians, their words and actions, as soon as possible. In this way we could in part reduce the level of social tension and aggression. In addition, at the current stage I would single out another factor playing a considerable role in the fact that some people support the right to buy and bear arms. This is the factor of being bewitched with the arms themselves. When a person with low self-esteem and diffidence takes a gun, he or she evaluates it as a means of raising his self-esteem, a compensatory factor, a symbol of masculinity and power of the owner of a deadly toy.

“On the other hand, the good sense and reasonableness peculiar to the Ukrainians could in the future make it possible to trust us with guns without fear.”

Yevhen HOLOVAKHA, Ph. D. in philosophy, senior research fellow, Sociology Institute of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine:

“I believe it inadmissible to bear loaded guns at all. Purchasing arms envisages special conditions for preserving them, special safes, etc. Considering our people’s incomes, I don’t think they would observe these rules. Thus, mass purchasing and keeping arms would, in my view, make people’s homes even more attractive for robbers. Only now, instead of capturing our people’s property, they will try to get their arms. Besides, I assume that most law- abiding citizens not only don’t know how to use a gun but won’t have the guts to use it. I am certain that a tear- gas cylinder is absolutely enough four self-defense. It is cheaper and less dangerous.”

Oleksandr KOSTENKO, Ph. D. in philosophy, professor, head of the Criminal Law, Criminology, and Judicial System Department at the Koretsky Institute of State and Law at the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine:

“This is a very controversial issue. On first sight, free access to arms can be connected with a growing level of crime involving its usage. However, it is noteworthy that criminology possesses no data as to such a relationship. The issue of the arms free turnout also involves corporative interests. Primarily, it is law enforcement bodies that are not interested in such an innovation, since it would make their work harder. On the other hand, many want to have a gun to protect themselves and their property. Today this is rather appropriate. However, the legislation should secure that a chance for people’s abuse of the right to purchase and bear arms would be reduced to minimum. In other words, the access to the arms should be restricted for persons purchasing it with criminal purposes, for instance, former convicts. Incidentally, I don’t think that legalizing the right to bear arms in Ukraine would provoke its mass purchasing, since far from everybody can afford it. Simultaneously, a free arms turnout might suppress the crime level growth, since a criminal would be aware that his potential victim is able to protect him or herself. I would also like to stress that in most developed countries there still exists a self-protection problem in spite of their more perfect, compared to Ukraine, law enforcement system. However, in these terms the Western experience is characterized by high culture of attitude to the arms. It foresees primarily raising citizens so that they not only knew how to use the arms but were willing and able to use it not only to protect their property, their life, and the lives of their near and dear, but also to protect their neighbors and even strangers. Unfortunately, we don’t have any such thing in contemporary Ukrainian society.”