Right to Carry Guns and Other Weapons Research Paper

Introduction

Guns and other weapons of the same category are said to be dangerous, and yes dangerous in deed, but also the myth that are dragged along by them are equally dangerous. Excluding the pre-meditated killings that in most cases there is nothing much that can be done, there are those incidents that are caused by the rules governing concealed weapons. The bad law that results from it is what is killing the citizens subjected to it.

In the current past existence, there has been significant attention drawn to the gun – related brutality. Most of the cases of homicide have been directly tied with the commission that permits private ownership of guns. People out there are convinced that the availability of this weapons it in any ones reach, which includes the minors in same states like Chicago. Wrong doers buy their guns illegally and effortless since there are in the market for any buyer and again there is no official jurisdiction tying them to qualify to some standards so as they can purchase them.

Control policy

The handgun control policy being a topic of discussion and bill tabled to the members of parliament to rule over the bill so that it can become law, has from time to time received different judgment when it came to its subjects. Right to carry has the bill passed and well implemented in 48 states as of early this year while other states like Washington and Illinois will only allow it to active and retired law enforcer officer. While 35 stastatesve been very adamant in their issuing offirearmss (Anderson 25). Their policy clearly indicates that the discretion to issuing of gun will be allowed if the candidate fits in some criteria.

This will include: applicant should be of majority age, have no prior offense that they have been convicted on and no recent past admission in to a health mental institution. In the states where caring of concealed weaponry is freelance the probability of an offender attacking you is slim, since their chance of survival is slim, since they don’t know if their defender is armed as well. The number of homicides and cases of robbery with violence has gone down drastically since the implementation of this law.

The residents of this state’s proudly cite the law on 2^nd amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” and strongly defend their privilege by arguing that all those people caring concealed guns are also well under investigation before issuing of a license, they are law- abiding citizens who use their fire arms rightfully without mishandling or misuse (Anderson 56).

With knowledge that anything with a positive must have its negative the residents on the opponent side of the bill to carry, argue that enlarged number of people owning guns lawfully has been increased its misuse. Disputes as to whether the gun crime has gone up due to freelance ownership or it it’s a state of mind. There have been reported cases of unintended gun injuries, mainly at home that are said to be contributed by mishandling of licensed weapons. Strong debates are on the increase trying to prove that availability and e accessibility of this weapon have been the major reason as to which petite disagreements are becoming toxic (Arkfed 48).

The offended results or their version of settling disputes is by use of a bullet. Therefore, part of the society feels they could be safer and assured of their lives with fewer guns on their streets. Their support come hand in hand with statistics that show, that in the last three years there has been reported cases of families and friends losing of about 130 families losing their loved ones into the arms of concealed weapon permit holders (Argyris and Schön 45). The police contest that they are no longer at freedom to conduct their duties since they fear for their lives too, covering nine cases of their colleagues’ shoot in cold blood by licensed owner.

More Guns or Fewer Guns

The rich and wealthy will have this motion held close to their hearts. Their loyalty into defending their family and property is well established by voting, in large numbers, to support that there should be more guns available in the streets. Their defense is the never ending reports of crime and murders; they don’t feel safe to wonder in the streets without any kind of self defense. They voted for the bill to made law, and though in some states it is still illegal in most states they recognize the right to carry.

With over 300 million guns owned personal and nearly 100million of assault weapons of the same genre possess privately makes it a little harder for the wipe them off the street. Although gun control maintain their statues and try harder each day to ban the implementation of more state the privilege to carry, their efforts have been so far successful as they could want. The ownership of the riffles on the other hand on average rises to about 4 million annually.

However, the anti-guns commission was set for the discussion of the availability of fire arms to ordinary citizens, the movement strongly campaigned against these “assault weapons” to ban them from the streets. The movement mainly concerned with gun and later including any other riffle that could be used to harm. Two states in particular showed at large to support the motion of rejecting the gun referendum. This turned out well as most of them expected and did not only ban the possession of handguns by private citizen but also shove for the congress to pass the National Rifle Association support of the weapon owner’s protection (Vliet 54).

In the last few years over the recent pas centuries the federal states and many federal gun usage controls have been subsequently been made less restrictive on t he criteria for any applicant while in others they have been completely eliminated. The supporters on this motion cried of their public safety being hinged and the murder cases increasing due to the casual availability of fire arms. The constraint have been eradicated, there is no waiting periods any more nor are there purchase permits requested for thus accessibility is effortless. As the opposing place all this factors of weapon accessibility they place the blame on the negligence of the laws made and cite most if not all murders, and the level of crime, on them. “The government made the streets a butcher”, this is because u never know who is carrying and their intentions.

Homicide in U.S.A

The federal bureau of investigation annually makes their business to inform the public about their security issues. A statistic is well compiled giving the rating of crime in the United States, presenting the data of all the criminal cases reported by the law enforcers. They also extend a generous hand of hard work and sacrifice to survey all the other cases that did not reach into the hands of the police.

By doing this they assure the citizens that their computation is almost accurate, having summed up the number of cases reported and having a rough draft of estimation of the unrecorded crimes. They categories in these cases are divided into five major categories of crime, which include violent, rape, assault, robbery and homicide. The indicators are importantly used by the residents, awareness and protection and also as an exhibit to understand the intricacies of crime in each state.

Though the difference in the rate of crime in different states will be highly dependent of a few factors including economical, social and spiritual levels, the level of crime will differ and even their performance chart will vary as well. As a state gradually improves and its economic indicators improve, their levels on the crime rate consequently decrease as well. It is reasonably common for crime rates in American metropolitan be extremely concentrated in a few states, and more often those that are economically challenged. At some point when financially viable is all over affecting the country at large the crime rate approximately lie on the same gauge. For instant in 2004 the homicide rate and that of home invasion registered was about the same, listing about 4000 crimes per 100,000 residents in each state (Argyris and Schön 68).

Crime is on average concentrated in some areas. Thus making the other well debated topic on the subject of crime is the likelihood of committing or falling victim of a crime will also depend on, which state it is, location and the popularity and to some extent demography. In general male and mainly those under 35 years rating them from black male followed by Hispanic male and finally white male.

This is mainly in those areas that resources are negligible and those in financially less complimentary positions. It has always been said that deterrence is not a sign of weakness rather of bravely and it always works. The question is mainly not what incarceration executed on the gun handlers in committing of crimes. There has been a recognizable tendency of the guns policies to be oversold by the supporters and consequently undersold by their opponents, thus taking a cautious scrutiny is not only enviable but also very important.

Justification for Carrying Guns

With reference to our statistic, we have seen that guns have firmly deepened crime incidents and have consequently heightened the odds of a more lethal outcome. The general public approach is centered on the manner in which law implements its policies and the regulatory bureau intervention. Opposes, especially those with more direct damages caused to their families as well as properties, have considerable reason and argument to fight for the right to carry bill not to pass. People want more attention given when it comes to the rules that govern the ownership of private firearms.

There should be stern policies that regulate the licensing of guns, just because one can afford it. Discrimination in regards to demography should be a thing to look at when it comes to issuing of private fire arms. All persons with the age of minority should not be allowed to own one under any circumstances. Those with a resent past or prior of conviction should not be allowed to posses’ guns, people could argue their case that past behavior could determine future behavior (Argyris and Schön 107). Without wanting to sound ignorant or inconsiderate people who have medical issue in regard to their mental health are not to be allowed to own guns or be in an environment of easy accessibility. Strategic lesson like those that are taken by undergraduate, should be advised to enable the law to have responsible people out there with fire arms.

They should learn how to use the riffle properly, how to maintain it in terms of storage and loading. This is to maintain a ‘clean’ environment out there for them, the carries, and the other resident. Being aware that to others breaking the law is actually a hobby. The law should not give them room to get away with the offences or riffle misuse. The law should enact strict regulations to those who are found to doing crime, or lending guns for crime purposes. Harsh and callous sentences and fines are to be passed when any person is found guilty of any of this and related crimes. This is so serve as an example to the community at large; so as to cab criminal cases and also help the citizens adhere to the rules set.

Criminologist George Kessler urges that though private ownership of guns it not the only way to cab the misconduct of many in the society in more ways than one it has played a very important part in the reduction of crimes (Kessler 78). He advises that policies around right to carry should be reviewed to evade violent encounters and advocates approaches that bound the free availability of fire arms to the high-risk cluster and the accessibility of these weapons in volatile circumstances (Kessler 87).

Measures such as an intensive background check up, to all fire arms purchasers should a matter of consideration and also prohibiting very small concealed guns. However on the other side as we allow people with good conduct to purchase guns severe enforcements of all the illegal gun possessors and even tougher verdict to those convicted of crimes that used gun.

Legislations

The Second Amendment of the constitution: The Right to Keep and Bear arms

The Second Amendment (commonly referred to as Amendment II) of the American constitution is that part of the constitution of the united states that is charged with the mandate of protecting and serving the right of the people to keep and bear arms. According to Arkfed, this amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, together with the other components that are contained in the American Bill of Rights (Arkfed 48).

Thus said, the right to keep and bear arms (otherwise commonly referred to as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms) asserts the notion that the citizens of the country have the legal right to “weapon(s) for individual use, or a united right to bear arms as a militia, or both.” Used in this context, the term “arms” is used to imply the ownership of weapons and armor while to “bear arms” is used in a manner to suggest the “waging of war.” Generally, outside the boundaries of the United States, the general concept of bearing and keeping arms varies from one jurisdiction to the other.

According to Michael Pütz, the creation and phrasing of the second amendment was heavily influenced by the precedence of the English 1689 Bill of Rights, restricting the right of the federal government from interfering with the rights of its citizenry to carry and bear arms (Pütz 487). This 1689 Bill of Rights was created in response to the restriction of the power of the monarch from having a standing army with the right to interfering and restricting the people of the kingdom from bearing and keeping arms.

However, the bill did not create a new totalitarian right for the people to have arms, instead, it rescinded and condemned the actions of the then King James II, who had previously restricted the rights of the Protestants from bearing and keeping arms: because he feared that they would run amok and overthrow him (Pütz 487). Accordingly, the right to bear arms was created with the legal implications that it was within the powers of the parliament to control and regulate, but not those of the monarch.

The right to carry

The laws that are concerned with the people right-to-carry arms expanded well within the 1990s, as a result of the increased rates of homicides and violent crimes committed through the use of guns. This was largely in response to the to the occurrence of such particular incidents such as the Luby Massacre that took place in Texas, 1991, directly resulting in the passage of the law to “Carry a Concealed Weapon” in the state (Berczuk and Appleton 58). According to Rorie Sherman, a staff reporter and a reputed writer of the National Journal of Law, “It is a time of unparalleled desperation about crime. But the mood is decidedly ‘I’ll do it myself’ and don’t get in my way’” (Berczuk and Appleton 58).

As a result, there have been the creation and passing of laws that permit people in a particular community or state to openly carry firearms, otherwise referred to as open carry, most of the times without the necessary permits required in order to do so. According to Victor Vliet, by June of 2009, 35 states within the united states have passed the law that permit this sort of weapons carry, sometimes requiring the involved parties to carry a “concealed handgun license, CHL, or concealed pistol license, CPL” (Berczuk and Appleton 108). Additionally, about 48 states have some form of license allowing individuals to carry weapons, most of which are concealed within the clothing of the individual.

According to the arguments of Economist John Lott, the laws that are contained in the Right-to-Carry Bill have the positive way of creating an impression that more crime victims might also be carrying firearms, acting a positive deterrent to criminal activities. However, this study has been openly criticized for not adequately considering other control factors, such as the presence of other state laws that have been created, that may not positively hinder criminal activities. In 2008, Florida, for example, passed a law legally enabling people to carry out background checks on other people, without prior knowledge (Bittner and Spence 217).

Additionally, gun carrying licenses often require a certain waiting period before they are approved, typically becoming public record that is accessible by potential criminals. In this regards, the right to carry arms would not act as a means of deterring criminal activity, by the assumption that criminals are more inclined to act against those without some form of protection, since they would be in a position to rightfully tell individuals who are armed and those who are not. An analysis of data collected by the economist reveals that the only statistical significance the bill is the increase in the rate of assaults, typically increasing where the bill has been legalized.

According to Victor Vliet, since licenses to carry and keep concealed weapons are given to adults within the society, the analysis of its effects should primarily focus on the relationship that it has on the adults, totally disregarding juvenile gun-related incidences (Vliet 28). A small positive effect of the bill is that it has reduced the levels of occurrence of adult homicides that are carried out with the use of guns, though these results are not statistically significant.

Towards a More Armed 21^st Century

Only a year after Glocks were introduced in the United States, Florida enacted a laws that pioneered the “shall issue” right of the citizens to carry and bear arms, serving as a model to be emulated and followed by other states within the nation (Galorath and Mathews 54). Accordingly, the law passed by Florida affirmed the right of the individuals to carry handguns as a means to eliminate the previous misuse that was typically present in the “discretionary” right-to-carry law, which had led to the arbitrary awarding of gun licenses to politicians and their cronies and perpetually denied to the “ordinary” citizens (Bittner and Spence 217). The law made it clear that all citizens had the right to carry and bear arms, as well as undergoing basic training, with permits to conceal the firearm being issued upon request by those without prior felonies.

However, the media has not been very forthcoming in the position of gun ownership by individuals, openly opposing the constitutional right of the citizens to defend themselves against outside attacks. News headlines have predicted the uproar of vigilante justice activities, wild-wild-west shootouts as well as the creation of “Gun-shine states,” with most of them stating that a “pistol-packing citizenry will mean itchier trigger fingers” (Bittner and Spence 247).

These media reports are ridden with news of fear and utter horror under the impacts of passing the bill, with “Every mental snap in traffic could lead to the crack of gunfire” (Bittner and Spence 317). However, such calamitous and colorful predictions have been proven wrong. In this regards, this same hysterical rumor mongering has served to increase the restrictions of the people to carry and bear firearms. According to Richard Sproat, the only notable thing that has happened over the past five years is the fact that criminal activities and homicides have decreased, with most of the opponents to the bill admitting that they were wrong (Sproat 254).

A survey carried out amongst a selection of convicted felons, indicates that they are more likely to commit violent crimes against people that are not armed than they are those that are. According to Sproat, “they should be afraid” as armed citizens kill from about 2,000 to 3,000 criminals every year, three or four times as much as the police (Sproat 87). Additionally, only 2% of these shootings involve civilians and bystanders mistakenly getting shot, whereas the error rate of the police is more than five times as high.

References

Anderson, Jason. Easing Handgun Licensing Laws: Helping the Public Fight Back. Cambridge, Massachussets: Harvard University Press, 2007.

Argyris, Charles and Schön, David. Would Gun Control Reduce Crime? Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 2010.

Arkfed, Richard. In the Heat of the Moment. Denver: Mac Murray Printing Press, 2004.

Berczuk, Peter, and Ben Appleton. Legal configurations of gun control and effective government. South Carolina, SC: USA Winthrop University, 2003.

Bittner, Kenneth, and Ian Spence. Managing legalization of the use of guns and development projects. London, UK: Rutledge, 2004.

Galorath, David, and Evans, Mathews. Concealed Handguns and Gun control. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin Publishing Company, 2005.

Kessler, George. Persuasive Essay on Gun Control. New Jersey, NJ: Wizard Books, 2007.

Pütz, Michael. Do Carry-Concealed-Weapons Laws Deter Crime? New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter, 1997.

Sproat, Richard. Armed Citizenry Makes Sense, Unless You’re a Crook. UK: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Vliet, Victor (2000). Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.