Why Liberal Gun Laws Are Bad and How They Affect the Community - Research Paper Example

Student name Instructor name Course name Date Why Liberal Gun Laws Are Bad and How They Affect The Community The reasons firearms have not been banned are many. This action would defy the Constitution, weaken hunter’s rights and take away the birthright to protect one’s family, possessions or self. The subject of gun control is contentious and the debate surrounding it often emotional usually centering on conflicting interpretations of the Constitution. Most people agree that the Second Amendment allows citizens to own guns for protection and hunting. Both common sense, as the title indicates, the law of the land and statistics demonstrate, stricter guns laws make us less not more safe. The idea of gun control in the State of Texas is absurd for all reasons already mentioned in addition to the independent nature of the culture in Texas. Much the same as in other states, guns are a tradition passed from father to son, a way of life. Even if some types of guns were outlawed, the logistical problem and practicality of collecting them would also be absurd. According to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “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” (“The Constitution”, 2006). This, as were the entire Bill of rights, was added by the founders of the country so as to provide a clearer definition of the specific rights granted to all Americans. Gun control supporters consider the Second Amendment to be “obsolete; or is intended solely to guard against suppression of state militias by the central government and therefore restricted in scope by that intent; or does not guarantee a right that is absolute, but one that can be limited by reasonable requirements” (Krouse, 2002). However, they only question the need for people to own firearms that are not primarily designed for sporting purposes such as hunting. Clearly, the right to own guns was of utmost importance to the Founding fathers given that it was listed second, after the freedom of speech and religion was acknowledged in the First Amendment. The Founders recognized that by ensuring the right to own arms, the public would have the ability to defend themselves from that which may jeopardize their life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. This could include physical protection from animals and persons and or from an tyrannical government that endangered the freedoms outlined in the Constitution. “The Second Amendment reflects the founders’ belief that an armed citizenry, called the ‘general militia’ was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our own government and its army. The idea that government has a constitutional right to disarm the general citizenry is totally foreign to the intent of the Constitution’s framers” (Reynolds & Caruth III, 1992). The State of Texas is known, somewhat deservedly, as having an open policy regarding firearms. Texans are permitted to carry concealed handguns after completing licensing requirements. George W. Bush, then Governor, signed a law which expressly permits guns to be carried in Church. Texans will, for the far foreseeable future, have their guns and be able to carry them on their person. Statistics bear-out what Texans have seemingly always known. “States which have passed concealed-carry laws have seen their murder rate fall by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent. In the early 1990s, Texas’s serious crime rate was 38 percent above the national average. Since then, serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole. All this happened after passage of a concealed-carry law in 1994.” LaRosa (2002) It has been said that Americans no longer need firearms the way they did 250 years ago. No unfriendly Indians and maybe a slight threat from wild animals; the government is secure and elected by a democratic procedure. In addition the people of the country have the most dominant armed forces ever assembled by mankind and several layers of law enforcement to protect them. Some also argue that the right to bear arms has become a detriment to the security of the general public. This is in conflict with the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Though a somewhat valid argument on the surface, the underlying justification for the right to keep and bear arms is an indispensable component to safeguard personal freedoms, which the Founders predicted. As an example, the first time gun control was passed in America it harmed the most vulnerable group of people. After the Civil War, many Southern states passed laws forbidding black persons from owing guns. Because of this, the newly freed slaves could not protect themselves from extremist white supremacist groups. Today, minorities of all types including Muslim and homosexuals which are the next in line, seemingly, as the oppressed minority of the country are better able to defend themselves because of their constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. “Many examples of human rights violations have been documented in all parts of the world following laws that banned citizens from owning guns” (Fulk, 1993). In 1911, Turkey enacted gun control legislation which led to the extermination of 1.5 million unarmed Armenian citizens of that country by 1917. In 1929, the Soviet Union enacted gun control. From that year until 1953, over 20 million unarmed people identified as political non-conformists were murdered by the state. Approximately 20 million citizens in China were killed for the same reason from 1948 to 1952 following gun control enacted in 1935. Gun control was enacted by the Nazi regime of Germany in 1938. From that time until the end of World War II in 1945, untold millions of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, politically-defined mentally ill people, political non-conformists and others considered less than ‘normal’ were exterminated. In 1956, Cambodia enacted gun control which led to the eradication of more than a million of its ‘educated’ citizens from1975 to 1977. Similar genocidal events occurred following gun control laws enacted in Guatemala in 1964 and Uganda in 1970 (Fuller, 2005). Security and safety depends on the right to own guns. The police departments are not legally bound to protect any group or anyone and typically are only able to respond to a crime that had previously occurred then write a report and possibly investigate. “Governmental police forces were created to prevent and break up riots, and to keep a general sense of public order. They were never designed to stop criminal acts against individuals and, accordingly, they do this job poorly” (Fulk, 1993). There is only roughly one policeman available for every 3,000 persons in a given city; consequently, personal safety is the duty of each individual. (Fulk, 1993). Gun-control advocates decry the problems with gun ownership each time a tragedy such as Virginia Tech or Columbine High School happens and although they would prefer every gun taken from law-abiding persons, infrequently is an enforceable, practical plan offered that might curb gun violence. Disarming Americans would be unfeasible because more than 294 million guns are in the country. About third of those are handguns. (Krouse, 2010) Trying to take guns away from criminals is a wonderful plan in some make-believe story but is a futile undertaking in the real world. “The ratio of people who commit handgun crimes each year to handguns is 1:400; that of handgun homicides to handguns is 1:3,600. Because the ratio of handguns to handgun criminals is so high, the criminals supply would continue with barely an interruption” (Department of Commerce, 1986: 171). Prohibiting guns in an effort to reduce criminal activity is as reasonable idea in about the same way prohibition of booze would reduce the occurrences of driving while drunk. Gun-control proponents argue that handguns do not any purpose but to kill people. Any hunter can tell you that this not true. This emphasizes the lack of knowledge the proponents have concerning the activity they condemn. Handguns are purchased chiefly for self-defense reasons but almost 20 percent of handguns are used for target practice, sport-shooting and approximately 15 percent are collectors of handguns. Further, hunters frequently use handguns to protect themselves against snakes and to hunt assorted game animals. (Kopel, 1988) For self protection, the common belief is that it is morally as well as legally suitable to use deadly force. However, it is only legal and many would contend moral, to use only the amount of force needed in a given situation. A firearm cannot be legally discharged, for example, to prevent a felony in progress unless that person could convincingly demonstrate he had a reason to think his life was in immediate danger. “If a six-foot male attacked another six-foot male with his fists, then lethal force would be deemed unnecessary and the victim of the attack would face a long prison sentence. However, if the same victim was a 5’ 2” female then this action would likely be judged appropriate” (Celaya, 2004). Changes in laws pertaining to handgun control have had little to no effect on crime rates during the 1990s. This is hardly surprising because most violent criminals do not get their guns from licensed, legitimate sources. Other plans, such as weapon buy-back programs have proven to be similarly unsuccessful for a many reasons including ease of replacement, intention for use and likelihood of use for crime. Earlier federal gun control laws passed in 1976 and 1982 had similar unsatisfactory results. “Concealed weapons laws have actually been shown to have a positive effect on crime rates, that is, they contribute to an escalation in crime” (Loftin, McDowall, Weirsema and Cottey, 1991). The liberal wing of society would quickly strip away the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms if it were able. Additionally, they would institute the ideology of Karl Marx, which advocates the equitable distribution of wealth, in regards to many aspects of American life. Americans are historically a self-reliant, independent people who vehemently defend their personal liberties. Enacting gun control laws move the country farther away from these American qualities which have defined the country’s principles and toward the idea that the government alone can best deal with personal protection issues. Some choose to simply consent to threats on their welfare as their destiny then depend on the government to deliver justice. However, others choose to protect themselves and their possessions. Both choices are the right of all Americans, at least for now. Many citizens would give away freedoms that were won by the blood of patriots by disallowing the right of gun ownership guaranteed by the constitution. They would do this without considering the potential genocidal consequences as demonstrated by historical examples or with no concern for the security of their neighbors and countrymen. Works Cited Celaya, Adam. “Use of Force.” Gunversation Online Magazine. (April 20, 2004). “(The) Constitution: The Bill of Rights.” Cornell Law School. (2006). April 2, 2011 Department of Commerce (Bureau of Census). Statistical Abstract of the United States (1986). Washington: Government Printing Office. Fulk, Austin. “Gun Control vs. Our Freedoms.” Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberties. (1993). April 2, 2011 Fuller, Al. (July 23, 2005). “Gun Control Revisited.” Odessa FactSheet. Vol. 44. Los Altos, CA: The American Horse. April 2, 2011 Krouse, William J.  “How Many Guns Are in the United States of America?” FreeGovReports (March 2010) April 2, 2011 LaRosa, Benedict “Can Gun Control Reduce Crime?” The Future of Freedom Foundation (November, 2002). April 2, 2011 Loftin, Colin, David McDowall, Brian Wiersema and Talbert Cottey. “Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia.” New England Journal of Medicine. 325:23, pp. 1615– 620. (1991). Reynolds, Morgan O. and  Caruth, W. W. III. “Myths about Gun Control.” Policy Report. National Center for Policy Analysis. No. 176. (December 1992). April 2, 2011 Read More