Guns are there a right to all American citizens, or are they an out of date way of defense. In this paper you will find many examples of how guns are a right for Americans. Also necessary way of defense.
People who are for gun control, assume that when guns are taken away there will no longer be any gun related crime. This is far from the truth, in many places where strict gun control bills have been passed; the murder rate has risen by a huge amount. In the following paragraphs you will find many examples of how gun control just means more violence.
New Jersey adopted what experts described as “the most stringent gun law” in the nation in 1966: two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the robbery rate had nearly doubled. Another example, in 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures on firearms its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 people per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
In 1976, Washington, DC passed one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city’s murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national rate dropped 2 percent. The defenders of the Washington law claim that it isn’t working because criminals are getting guns in Virginia, where the laws are more relaxed. However just across the Potomac River, in Arlington Va. has a murder rate less than one tenth of what Washington has?
In the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 of which have strict police on gun ownership. 20 percent of the United States homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington D.C. Respectfully each of these cities has virtual made it illegal to own a handgun. New York on its own has 20 percent of the armed robberies in the country.
These states are not only limited to the United States; Canada passed a gun control law in 1977. After this took place they saw an increase in armed robbery and burglary.
Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the entire world. The reason why it requires all able-bodied males between the ages of 20 and 50 to have a military-issued automatic weapon, ammunition and other equipment in their homes. Israel, is a country, which has an extremely low crime rate but is vulnerable to many enemies including terrorists? They depend on the of widespread civilian gun possession. There are many other examples of countries will low gun control and low crime violence. Also examples of countries with high gun control and high crime rate.
Another reason that people give for gun control is that it is not a constitutional right to own a gun. This statement is far from the truth, the second amendment, which states “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Note that the founding fathers made this the second right out of ten. Which means that it most of been of great important to them.
It is argued that the right to bear arms is conditional upon the need to have armed citizens as part of the national defense. Therefore, if the need for armed citizens were not need, the founding fathers would no have asserted the right.
In the modern era, supposedly the need is not there. Does this mean there is no longer any constitutional right to own guns? No, at the time that the constitution was written, “militia” had two meanings. The first one a “select militia” which was the forerunner of our modern National Guard. The second meaning was “general militia” which are all able-bodied men with arms. “Militia” means that any able-bodied person is able to own a gun.
The founding fathers strongly believed in the right of ordinary citizens to bear arms, and not just for defense against foreigners. People feared the new federal government and its standing army as much as they feared foreign invaders. As James Madison explained in the federalist Papers, the primary check on the government tyranny and an abusive army was citizens with their own arms. This still is a factor in today world, even though the armed forces have more weapons than the armed citizens do.
In an off note the Revolutionary War was sparked by the British attempt to confiscate the patriots’ privately owned arms at Lexington and Concord. Thus the notion that the founding fathers thought that the government had a no right to disarm peaceable citizens. The fact the founding fathers fought for the right to keep and bear arms.
Firearms are used in about 12 percent of violent crimes; it is unlikely that any kind of gun control legislation could remove more than a handful of those firearms from felons’ hands. There is no evidence that the disarmed criminals using them would not then turn to other weapons. All the gun control laws that are passed by the government will also not normally affect criminals. For the reason that they today get there weapons from unconventional sources.
The only thing that gun control bills really do is disarmament the peaceful people who own guns. In doing so, it takes away from that the normal citizen being able to protect its self from criminals.
There are many studies been done about why criminals acquire handguns. Most of these studied brought up the fact that they own them for self-defense, because they associate with other criminals and are likely to be victims. In a survey was given to imprisoned felons, 54 percent said protection was a very important reason for getting a handgun and 26 percent said that it was some what important. Only 25 percent said that the reason that they own handguns was to commit crime.
Over the years, police and other expert have changed their recommendations about how to deal with criminals. In early and middle 70’s, they advised cooperating with robbers and rapists to minimize chances of personal injury. Today, the people that gave that advice tacitly admit that it was misguiding. They now urge resistance in many instances, especially for rape victims. Studies show that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to suffer injuries as those who put up no defense.
Advocates of gun control have paid for several studies, hoping to prove that guns are not useful for self-defense. But every study has shown the opposite: Handguns are used at least as often in repelling crimes as in committing them and are particularly successful as weapons of defense. For This reason why 88 percent of the nation’s command-rank police officials disagree with the statement; “The banning of private ownership of firearms will result in fewer crimes from firearms.” Shunt the police know whether that gun control will stop criminals from acting out with a firearm. More than any other person for the fact that they are the ones who have to face these criminals on the streets.
In the 1960s a New York-based antigun group printed signs for its members to post on their homes, the sign read “ THERE ARE NO GUNS IN HIS HOUSE.” Lets just say these homes were robbed or burglarized more than another house. For the fact that criminals did not have to fear a gun in the house. Criminals do not have feared the police as much as they fear the citizen with a gun. An armed citizen kills 3 times as much criminals as the police does, a 2,000 to 3,000 criminals a killed a year by citizens. Americans use firearms for protect an estimated one million times each year. If we make guns illegal that is one million more crimes that will be susseful.
A survey has been done of 1,874 felons in 10 states, that they are more afraid of running into an armed victim then to running into the police. 42 percent reported they had encounter a victim armed with a gun, and 38 percent had been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim.
Another main reason that guns are needed for self-defense is that there are about 500,000 police officers in the United States. Adjusting for three shifts per day, vacations, desk duty, etc. That leaves about 75,000 police on patrol at any moment to protect 250 million Americans. That’s one police officer for every 3,360 potential victims. 1 per 3,360 that is a very bad average. Every year five million people are victims of violent crimes – murder, rape, robbery, or life threatening assaults. That would or could be stooped be a yielding armed citizen.
Supreme Court held a case in 1856 and decided that local law enforcement officers had a general duty to enforce laws, not to protect a particular person. In 1982 a federal court of appeals said: “…there is no constitutional right to protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators, but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteen Amendments or, we suppose any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: its tells the state to let people alone, it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.” These rulings are consistent with the original intent of the founding fathers. They assumed that law abiding citizen would be able it fend for them self. This becoming impossible with all the gun control bills that are being passed.
Gun controls are issues that are facing the people in the United States today. As you have seen demistrated in this paper. Gun control does not take guns away from the criminals, it just take them away from the every day peaceful citizen, who need then for the self-defense.
I.Higher Crime with more Gun Control
C.Dealing with Criminals
E.New York example