Study "Gun Control / Rights / 2nd Amendment" Essays 56-110

123. . .
X Filters 

Gun Control and the Regulation Term Paper

… '" Subsequently he concluded that "I see no compelling reason to think that owning a gun is a fundamental interest."

The philosopher saw no major reason to argue in favor of gun-possession and felt that since it was not a serious-citizenship-rights matter, it ought to be discussed on moral grounds. And morally, he assumed, gun-possession didn't serve any social or public interest. Another good aspect of the discussion was reference to empirical data. The author has used less anecdotal evidence and has referred to empirical data from Department of Justice to support his arguments against gun-control.

The weaknesses of the article are numerous. For one, the author never mentions his stance on the issue clearly. It can only be extracted from various points raised by the author in the article such as " ... If fundamental rights should, as far as reasonably possible, have equal value to their possessors, then the state has a duty not to prohibit possession of "equalizers," especially since it recognizes no duty whatsoever to protect any individual from violent victimization." Secondly it appeared absolutely unnecessary to include Aristotle's views when they failed to bring any valuable point to the discussion. The author also fails to reach sound conclusions. The notes provide some background information on vital issues such as strict gun-control and general gun-control but since these points are not mentioned within the text, the notes do not account for much. The author doesn't recognize weaknesses of his article though he mentions the futility of Aristotle's views.

Further research would be required where references to empirical data are concerned. According to the authors, firearms incidents are declining and there is no co-relation between gun possession and rising rate of homicides and suicides in the country. This needs to be cross-checked and if it is true, then these conclusions can have positive impact on social control policy and gun control laws. For one, the conclusion that firearms incidents are consistently declining should have an impact on strict gun control laws. The opponents of gun-control cannot base their arguments of empirical data at least. Secondly, the conclusion that state has a duty towards its citizens and it must provide full protection can also been used as premises for arguments in favor of gun possession.

Work Cited:

Lance K. Stell: Gun Control and the Regulation of Fundamental Rights.…… [read more]

Gun Control Gun Availability Term Paper

… Gun Control

Gun availability has become a very much discussed and very intensely debated item of discussion in the United States. According to statistics there are over 230 million guns privately owned, about half of households in the United States… [read more]

Right to Bear Arms Gun Control Term Paper

… ¶ … Right to Bear Arms

Gun control became an issue for Americans in the 1960s when President Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, and Senator Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated, all with guns. People began to demand that the government… [read more]

Policy-Making Issues and the Second Amendment Research Paper

… Policy Brief: Gun Law Changes

The highest and most authoritative source of law in the United States is the Constitution and its several amendments. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that the Founders believed gun ownership… [read more]

District of Columbia v. Heller Term Paper

… For a start, we must realize that there are competing versions of history (and indeed of the English language) which are at stake behind the differing approaches taken by Scalia and by his many critics. Hardy cites Joyce Lee Malcolm's… [read more]

Handguns Should Be Banned Argue Term Paper

… Gun Control

Wouldn't it be great to significantly reduce murders and violent crime by simply banning all handguns? Those who favor gun control base their support on this type of emotional appeal. However, the facts show that their opinions rely on a series of faulty assumptions, most notably that the right to bear arms is not a constitutional right, the gun control will deter crime and that you can somehow disarm criminals.

This paper examines these misperceptions and explains why they simply aren't true. It concludes with a recommendation that citizens should not support gun control.

The interpretation of the 2nd amendment has polarized the American people among two different views (Greenslade, 2004). Those in favor of gun control argue that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms because the Amendment refers to the people's collective right as members of a well regulated State militia. In contrast, the individual rights view holds that individuals may bring claims or raise challenges based on a violation of their rights under the 2nd Amendment just as they do to vindicate other individual rights secured by the Bill of Rights. This view appears to be the most valid after placing the Amendment in appropriate historical context. Prior to the Constitution, the right to arms was consistently a personal one. "Beginning with the right of individual English subjects to have arms for their defense, it was supplemented in revolutionary America with the notion that a citizen militia, comprising the armed citizenry, was a particularly important means of securing free government." ("Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right," 2004) American leaders such as Thomas Jefferson proposed that "no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms," and Samuel Adams called for an amendment banning any law "to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." ("The Right to Keep and Bear Arms," 1982). Following the American Revolution, several states included explicit right-to-bear-arms provisions in their declarations of rights which sought to protect an individual right and these provisions served as a basis for the 2nd Amendment ("The Right to Keep and Bear Arms," 1982).

Although gun control advocates argue that guns should be banned because they are responsible for crime, there is no evidence to support this claim. There is no direct statistical correlation between gun ownership and homicide or other violent crimes (Kopel, 1988). As supporting evidence, Kopel reveals that in the first 30 years of this century, U.S. per capita handgun ownership remained stable, but the homicide rate rose tenfold. and, between 1937 and 1963, handgun ownership rose by 250%, but the homicide rate fell by 35.7%. Kopel also points to a compelling country example to illustrate that guns do not cause crime. Switzerland actually distributes both pistols and fully automatic assault rifles to all adult males and requires them to store these weapons in their home. The country has practically no regulation on long-gun purchases and handguns are available… [read more]

Second Amendment Term Paper

… Gun-related crime is not the domain of the gun manufacturer. Most homicides committed with a firearm are not accidental; they are intentional. If domestic crime reduction is the aim of the gun control lobbyists, then those lobbyists are aiming at the wrong tree. The proliferation of firearms is a fact and there is no reasonably way to recall weapons already sold. That being the case, future restrictions on gun sales would do nothing to curb homicides. Black markets thrive and create more crime than liberal, open markets do. Instead of limiting sales and purchases of guns, legislatures need to spend more time and money on the proper enforcement of existing laws. Treating gun control as top priority drains money from a needy police force. Crime control must take precedence over gun control.

All firearms owners should possess a fundamental understanding of the nature of their weapon(s). Individual guns have unique characteristics; owners should study their weapons as they would their breed of dog. Guns should be treated with respect as if they are loaded at all times. They should be pointed in a safe direction when handled casually, fingers away from the trigger. Mechanical safeties fail, so owners shouldn't rely on them. Guns kept in storage should never be loaded, and if children are present, great care should be taken to prevent misuse. Protective gear and correct ammunition, along with common-sense knowledge about shooting can help prevent accidents. And of course, the use of alcohol or drugs around firearms must not be permitted any more than driving while drunk. If safety measures like these are taken to ensure safe gun possession, cumbersome, unfair, and unjust laws will not be required to reduce accidents.

The basis of the Second Amendment of the constitution is founded in the need to organize militias. While many things have changed since the 18th century, people are still people; politics still politics. Two hundred-odd years is a speck of time. We live under the illusion that somehow we have evolved permanently and that the government of the United States is incapable of infractions against which we must fight. Especially in the wake of September 11, citizens need to bear personal arms not only for self-defence, but also in defence of the rights and principles upon which our country was founded.

If the cause of states or local militias to rise up against a tyrannical government seems anachronistic, imagine an extreme case: fear of terrorism reaches paranoia. The United States government imposes atrocious rules that regulate our speech and our behavior. Gradually, without the luxury of shock, Americans become subjected to tyrannical rule. The transition was smooth but suddenly the reality of the new world order sets in. In order to break free from an oppressive regime, we all do need the right to bear arms.

Gun control is not the solution to the problems besetting our society: violence is inherent in human nature. What we need is enforcement, education, and respect. We need to enforce existing… [read more]

Gun Regulation Research Paper

… Still, despite the clear benefits of such regulatory measures, Congress still shows clear signs of a showdown among bipartisan lines (Calabresi 1). Republicans are fighting Democrats' initiatives on gun control every step of the way, which is making it difficult for any regulatory measures to pass. Congress needs to push aside its party differences and understand that these current regulations are not taking such guns off the market completely, but rather just making it harder for criminals to purchase and use them in violent attacks against America's communities.

The concept of gun regulation is one which is always a sensitive subject here in the United States. Americans demand access to weapons through their Second Amendment Rights, and thus gun enthusiasts see gun regulation of any sort as a violation of their Constitutional Rights, according to an article by Devi in 2012. Such thinking has caused many states to be extremely conservative with their own gun regulation, allowing for citizens to purchase dangerous weapons with little regulations or background checks. Unfortunately, "many people don't realize that, in most states, individuals convicted of violent misdemeanors with court-issued restraining orders for domestic violence, or who have a serious history of mental illness or substance abuse, can legally possess firearms" (Devi 1545). Without greater restrictions, dangerous weapons like fully automatic guns and assault riffles are being bought and sold by those who have a motive to use them against others and incite violence within American communities.

The lack of regulations essentially allows dangerous weapons to fall into the hands of those who would abuse them. Thus, Congress needs to enact greater regulations, not banning these weapons entirely, but enforcing greater restrictions on who has access to them. It is the right of normal Americans to own weapons, they just need to prove their ability to own them responsibly.


Calabresi, Massimo. "How Gun Control Ends: Not with a Bang, But with a Whimper." Time Magazine. 2013. Web.

Devi, Sharmilla. "Researchers Call for Reform of U.S. Gun Control Policies." The Lancet. Vol. 380, Issue…… [read more]

Bowling for Columbine Essay


In his 2002 movie Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore examines the issues of gun ownership and violence in the United States. The movie's title is a reference to the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado by two students heavily armed with firearms. Initially, Moore considers the prevalence of gun ownership as a causal factor in the massacre and as the reason for the high rate of gun violence in the U.S. Moore does illustrate the fanaticism of the National Rifle Association and its thousands of supporters. Eventually, however, he concludes that violence in the U.S. is more the result of a culture of aggression and violence than simply the result of access to firearms. Moore suggest as much through imagery of U.S. foreign policy in action.

Opinion of Issues

The National Rifle Association

Moore actually visits the home of the late President of the National Rifle Association (NRA) unannounced to challenge the former actor on the issue of responsibility for gun violence. When confronted by Moore's argument that the widespread availability of firearms in the U.S., Heston replies that Moore should refer his questions to the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.

That suggestion is based on the familiar position of the powerful NRA political lobby (and many others) supporting the belief that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically guarantees the "right to bear arms." In reality, the issue is much less clear because many legal scholars (including the members of the U.S. Supreme Court to date) argue that the Second Amendment merely authorizes the individual states to maintain armed state militias (Dershowitz, 2002).

In my opinion, the more restrictive interpretation may make more sense, mainly because the Constitution was drafted at a time when states' rights and federal rights were a principal concern. It is also unreasonable…… [read more]

Ownership of Guns Term Paper

… 8 to 13.0 suicides per 100,000 population...At most...this huge increase in the gun stock might have caused a mild increase in the percentage of suicides committed with guns, which shifted from 53.3 in 1972 to 60.3 in 1994, and thus a mild corresponding increase in the gun suicide rate." (Kleck pp. 265)

So should gun control be implemented? By the evidence provided above, I conclude guns should be totally done away with. The issue is very sensitive and the lives of people depend upon the availability and free ownership of guns. A gun in the house means that the person is liable to use it. Prevention is better than the cure, it has been repeated many times, but its implementation in the gun case is of esteemed importance. Think about it, who would use a gun if there were no guns. Nature and instinct, to use something which he has bought and owns bind a person. A gun in the hands of a nervous or otherwise trigger-happy person can result in serious damage to the lives and property of innocents. So it does serve better to remove the root cause of such accidents or premeditation: to destroy the guns.

Works Cited

Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Uniform Crime Rep" 1999.

A (Accessed March 20, 2002)

Kleck, Gary. "Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control." New York, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1997

Kellermann, Arthur L, MD, "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327, (1992): pages 34-36.

Anonymous. "An improvement in emergency medical services and hospital trauma centers, so that many gunshot victims who might have died in the past are now saved." New York Times News Service, New York, 1996

Roth, Jeffery A.,…… [read more]

Brady Act Policy Evaluation Research Paper

… However, as the next section notes, there are some discrepancies in the performance of this policy that must be addressed.

Gaps Between Policy and Reality:

To this end, one of the largest and most problematic gaps between the intention of the Brady policy and the actuality of the policy in execution is that its focus is limited to only federally licensed gun deals. Unfortunately, the firearms business is characterized by a wide range of independent sellers and unmonitored transactions. The result is that the background check program has a decidedly limited reach when it comes to a statistically significant number of gun sales. According to Senator Levin, "the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence [reports that] two out of every five guns acquired in the United States; including guns bought at gun shows, through classified ads, and between individuals; change hands without a background check. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence also estimates that extending criminal background checks to all gun transactions in the United States could prevent nearly 120,000 additional illegal gun sales every year." (Levin, p. 1)

This means that we are only really catching a little more than half of all gun buyers who are likely to be unfit for firearm ownership. Because the Brady Act has been prevented from reaching into such sales contexts as private weapons shows, it is difficult to truly determine its impact. Most particularly, we have know way of knowing what percentage of legally unfit buyers prefer to pursue their acquisition in a context without background checks. However, we may assume that being unfit for purchase from a legal dealer is a strong inventive to purchase a handgun through an alternate channel.

This likelihood may in fact account for the finding reported in the article by Cook. Here, Cook points out that if we choose to measure the Brady Act's effectiveness using an alternate metric, it is appropriate to consider its impact on actual gun violence. Here, Cook points out that the very purpose of the Brady Act was in fact to stem the occurrence of gun violence rather than to simply restrict purchase. According to these terms, the "study did not find significant trend differences between the Brady and non-Brady states in the most reliably measured gun crime - homicide. Thus the direct effect on gun crime that advocates expected from denying disqualified adults in the Brady states does not reveal itself in our data." (Cook, p. 1)


Scrutinizing this claim a little more closely, we can see that the finding is somewhat disingenuous, primarily because the states which did not adopt the Brady Bill in 1994 already did employ some form of background check-based gun control. A better basis for comparison would be the rate of change in gun violence following policy initiation vs. other crimes. According to Butterfield (2000), "Justice Department figures have shown that crimes committed with handguns fell 52% from 1993 to 1998, which is twice the rate that crimes fell over all." (p. 1)

The distinction… [read more]

Secretary of State Transition From Hillary Term Paper

… Secretary of State Transition From Hillary to John Kerry

For the past eight years the Secretary of State position has been held by a woman. Despite criticism that Obama's new administration lacks the female power it has held in the… [read more]

United States, in Accordance Research Paper

… Restricting the import of all spare firearms of military and various other weapons with the exception of sport purposes

Therefore the main law in The Gun Control Act of 1968 obliges the licensing of all the guns related to manufacturers,… [read more]

State or Local Policy Essay

… Government - Policy


Gun control has been a very controversial issue in American society since the enactment of state and local restrictions against gun ownership by private citizens.

According to proponents of private gun ownership, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically guarantees the rights of citizens to bear arms.

Conversely, gun control regulation advocates maintain that the only right granted by the Second Amendment is the right of individual states to maintain armed militias, such as state national guards and police forces.

That particular argument suggests that the original motivation for the proposal of the Second Amendment related to the concerns of the anti-federalists during the constitutional ratification period of American history. Those concerns were primarily that the individual states never be disarmed by the federal government and not the rights of individual citizens to possess firearms. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a potentially pivotal decision in the Heller case, striking down the prohibition in the District of Columbia against private firearm ownership. The implications of Heller include likely challenges in other states like New York, particularly in the New York City, where private gun ownership has been effectively prohibited since 1976.

Gun Control in New York City: Prior to 1976 private citizens in New York City were required to register guns with the city. In 1976, New York City stopped registering guns for private citizens, enacting very stringent requirements instead that operate in fact, if not in law, as an outright ban against guns for New York City residents. At that time, New York City was plagued with one of the highest crime rates in the country with one of the highest rates of violent crime, crimes effected through the use of firearms, and shootings of police officers.

As a result, the Koch administration enjoyed considerable support for restrictions on firearm ownership in the community. Traditionally, New York City has been considered a liberal city on the spectrum of political orientation, which likely accounted for the relative lack of opposition to gun control measures at the time. By contrast, similar proposals in traditionally more conservative states would have inspired considerably more opposition by virtue of social norms that pertained to gun ownership.

The combination of high crime and lack of a traditional emphasis on gun ownership in New York as compared with other American States both contributed to the relative ease with which New York City enacted the administrative codes of 1976 that, in effect, banned gun ownership by private citizens throughout all five counties of New York City.

Specifically, those administrative codes replaced the…… [read more]

Can Schools Shootings Be Prevented Term Paper

… Violence - School Shootings


School shootings have occurred periodically in the United States and the rest of the world ever since Charles Whitman, a University of Texas engineering student, took up his sniper position in the Bell Tower above the campus, killing 16 people and wounding another 31 before being killed by police in 1966 (USSS & UDDOE 2002).

Since then, some of the most infamous incidents include the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado that took 15 lives and the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre that accounted for more deaths (33) than any other American school shooting.

Public safety officials and many local, state, and federal government agencies have devoted significant resources to understanding the phenomenon. A collaborative effort between the U.S. Secret Service and the Department of Education produced a comprehensive manual for addressing the threat on school campuses, but it is unlikely that even the best approaches can ever eliminate future school shootings for several specific reasons.

School Bullying and Other Psychological Factors:

Adolescence is a difficult period of development even in the best of circumstances. One of the most common, age-old dynamics of childhood and public education is the social phenomenon of bullying behavior, which, in some cases, can even leave emotional scars that last into adulthood. Whereas the vast majority of bullying victims never resort to murdering their victimizers or to indiscriminately murdering others, social ostracism and peer rejection is a commonly shared trait among many of those who perpetrate school shootings (USSS & USDOE 2002).

Other psychological factors that play a role in many school shootings include dysfunctional family relationships, domestic violence, and in some cases, even excessive parental expectations and self imposed educational performance anxiety or perceived failure to achieve personal goals. Sometimes, these factors trigger clinical depression and suicide attempts; other times, they may manifest themselves in externally-focused violence.

Since the Columbine tragedy in 1999, school authorities have devoted considerably more attention to excluding weapons from educational facilities and in several instances, public awareness of the potential danger of school shootings has led to the identification of potential perpetrators before the fact. Unfortunately no school is completely impervious to the threat of smuggled weapons.

Gun Control:

Gun ownership is a highly charged political issue with many Americans equating the right to bear arms as a fundamental component of constitutionally protected freedoms. The National Rifle Association (NRA) enjoys a powerful lobbying position in…… [read more]

Block Scheduling Education Term Paper

… Gun Control

Advocates argue that gun control laws reduce the incidence of violent crimes by reducing the prevalence of firearms. Gun laws control the types of firearms that may be purchased, designate the qualifications of those who may purchase and… [read more]

Should Handguns Be Banned Term Paper

… Handgun Control

The great majority of people want to live in a safe society. In order to do this, they willingly pay taxes that are used to pay for fire and police protection. Police protection in particular serves the purpose of preventing crimes by being a presence in the community. We arm our police because sometimes they will face criminals who are armed. The police are highly trained in how to use firearms to help preserve peace, but civilians are not. Some people feel that citizens should be allowed to arm themselves for protection against criminals as well, but civilians are not trained in the safe use of firearms for protective purposes. For this reason, handguns should be restricted to use by police personnel.

Laws are passed for the purpose of serving the greater good of the community that passes the laws. At the federal level, we have the Constitution. Those who support the right of private citizens to carry handguns point to the Constitution, which clearly protects the right to bear arms. However, it can be argued that the founding fathers included this rule so citizens could form citizen militias, which played an important part in the American Revolutionary War. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a person can keep a handgun in his or her home, keep it loaded, and shoot people who try to intrude into their homes. In fact, depending on the circumstances, someone who shoots an individual trying to enter his or her home might be praised as a hero or arrested for breaking the law. The laws vary from state to state regarding handguns.

In fact, handguns really only have one use, and that is to shoot other human beings. They are not suitable for hunting, because they are not accurate at longer distances. Handguns were not common when the Constitution was written, and pistols were used by officers in close combat, and for…… [read more]

Ineffectiveness of Gun Control: Violence Term Paper

… Indeed, lax gun control measures contribute to the prevalence of these killings. The legal system of the country regarding gun control is ineffective in implementing strict control of gun possession among individuals under the legal age of 18. An article by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) cited that the U.S. federal law does inhibit gun acquisition/purchase for individuals under the age of 18, but gun possession restrictions are not the same in all states in the country. As was stated in the report, "possession of handguns and rifles by juveniles is regulated solely at the state level. In many states it is legal for juveniles to possess shotguns and rifles, although other states regulate or prohibit possession of long guns." Thus, through this statement, it is evident that the law regarding gun ownership, acquisition, possession is inadequate to fully implement a strict and legal gun control measures to prevent another episode of youth violence from happening again in the American society, whatever the intentions of an individual are in possessing the said weapon (whether it is for self-protection or not).

In effect, the society and its institutions play a vital role in preventing or further accelerating the rapid increase of youth violence and inadequate gun control rules and measures in the country. Since legal measures take time to be formulated and implemented, it is vital that society should be vigilant in ensuring that gun possession are not easily accessible to minors. This can only be achieved if parents can practice safety precautions and measures that inhibit children and teenagers from accessing these weapons. Thus, gun control can be implemented effectively by a "watchful" society always alert on the adverse effects of gun accessibility among children, avoiding occurrences of violence (especially) from happening again.

Works Cited

Navasky, Miri. "The Killer at Thurston High." PBS Online and FRONTLINE. 28 November 2003

Recruitment of Kids to the Gun Culture." Violence Policy Center Web site. 28 November 2003… [read more]

Sandy Hook School Shooting Research Paper

… Positive and Negative Impact Analysis

It is very difficult to find anything positive in the Sandy Hook School Shooting. Many people died, seemingly senselessly. Some believe there is a reason for everything, but others do not see it the same… [read more]

Right to Bear Arms Thesis

… Right to Bear Arms

In order to understand the importance of the right to bear arms, one must have a clear understanding of the events leading up to the American Revolution. The American colonists were being subjected to a form… [read more]

Changing the Bill of Rights Article Review

… Changing the Constitution

Examining the Constitution, many people believe that fundamental freedoms cannot be protected with adhering to the Bill of Rights. However, it is critical to realize that the Bill of Rights was authored more than 200 years ago, by people who viewed liberty in a far more limited manner than it is viewed by modern Americans. Moreover, it was written in a time when modern technological advances were impossible to contemplate. Therefore, two amendments in the Bill of Rights should be changed: the Second Amendment and the Seventh Amendment.

The text of the Second Amendment provides, "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."

This has been interpreted to mean that individuals have a right to bear arms that cannot be prohibited by the government, though it can be regulated. However, looking at the text of this amendment, one can begin to see why it would be problematic. At the time it was drafted, the amendment provided citizens the right to bear arms that would be sufficient to defend themselves against the armed forces of other governments. Interpreted in the present day, this would amount to an individual right to bear any arms that a nation possessed, which would mean an individual right to chemical and nuclear weapons. This is a ludicrous position and one that the founders could not have contemplated. It leads one to ask "how the heck can we determine 'Constitutional interpretation of law' based on laws which govern situations or events that couldn't have even been imagined when it was written?"

Even more troubling is the fact that reliance on the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights has "saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse."

No one can deny that America has a gun violence problem or that countries that have instituted strict gun control standards have seen attendant drops in gun violence. However, it has become impossible to even debate gun control in America because it becomes a dog whistle for people who want to claim that their rights are being infringed.

Like the Second Amendment, the Seventh Amendment should be changed because it has become irrelevant or unworkable with time. The Seventh Amendment provides, "In suits at common law, where…… [read more]

Public Problem Why Gun Laws Should Be Changed Term Paper

… Gun Laws

To begin, gun laws of late have become a very contentious issue for politicians and society at large. In one instance policy makes must appease their natural funding constituency in regards to their basic rights to bare arms. However, they also must consider the broader implications of their policy actions on society at large. When juxtaposed against one another, a very contentious and often emotional debate arises. Many agree however, that gun laws must be altered to reflect the changing operating environment our world functions in. With the advent of globalization and e-commerce, new threats to society and the general public have become very profound. Immigration laws have allowed millions of undocumented individuals into the nation. These individuals have the ability to obtain firearms, and other armaments that could jeopardized the safety of the American public. E-commerce allows individuals to hide behind aliases and convoluted processes when purchasing weapons. Due in part to these aspects, gun laws should be changed to create greater transparency in regards to purchases, greater oversight when purchases are made, and more information regarding the individuals purchasing the products (Ozanne-Smith, 2004).

Needs and implementation strategy

In regards to needs and implementation, the needs of the community at large should take precedence. Society must have freedom as the nation is predicated on this principle. As such the implementation should be universal to reflect the global nature of the gun control. Laws enacted should apply to every state and should be applied immediately after they are enacted. Deterrents should also be implemented and shared throughout the nation. Best practices in the implementation of deterrents and legislation should also be seamless. Aspects such as excessive bureaucracy and cost should be eliminated at all levels. Bureaucracy in particular is troublesome to the overall implementation of the strategy as it causes unnecessary time lapses. In addition, bureaucracy makes adjustments both costly and ineffective as agencies are unable to respond to changing dynamics in the gun community. As such, in regards to implementation, the solution must be universal enough to apply to the entire nation, but flexibly enough to allow law enforcement and the community to react in a timely fashion.

Action Plan

The action plan will first begin with a natural and unscripted dialogue regarding firearm legislation. At stakeholders are to be present during these preliminary discussion. Both sides of the argument are to be heard. The first and most efficient manner in which to arrive at new firearm legislation is to arrive common objectives. For the most part, few individuals object to greater transparency, oversight, and information. What will become contentious is the manner in which these objectives are met. The action plan should include a more transparent national database and expanded background checks to compensate for any lack of information when purchases firearms. This will further protect the public by ensuring that criminals, those who are mentally ill, or terrorists will not have the ability to obtain firearms. The national database will provide information regarding all those… [read more]

Gun Violence Research Paper

… Gun Violence

According to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (2010), the agenda of the National Rifle Association "includes weakening the requirements to obtain a concealed handgun permit, expanding the number of places...where concealed handguns can be carried, and enacting "Shoot First" laws that remove an individual's duty to retreat from potentially violent confrontations." The aggressive support of Second Amendment rights has possibly gone beyond the boundaries of personal freedom. As Lott (2000) points out, the net effect of gun control laws on gun violence statistics is difficult to determine due to flaws in research methodology and the variance in laws from state to state, county to county. One thing is sure: gun violence remains a tremendous problem in the United States.

The Legal Community Against Violence (2010) points out that gun violence alone leads to about 100,000 injuries and 30,000 deaths per year. Over half of all gun deaths are suicides, and over 40% are homicides (Legal Community Against Violence 2010). The level of gun ownership is statistically linked to both murder and suicide rates, worldwide (Gun Control Network 2007). Gun violence is the "second most frequent cause of death overall for Americans aged 15 to 24 (Violence Policy Center nd). The prevalence and severity of gun violence warrants a pointed and proactive public policy response.

The United States especially contends with a major gun violence epidemic. Gun violence rates are three to four times as high in the United States than in any other developed nation in the world (Gun Control Network 2007). Clearly, the gun lobby clings to the Second Amendment without taking into account sociological and criminological data. The Second Amendment protects the rights of Americans to protest their government if that government should become tyrannical; the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of Americans to proliferate gun violence and create a society riddled with gun crime (Cornell 2006).

Background of the Problem

Before the War of Independence, the Colonialists brought guns with them for "utilitarian purposes," (DeConde 2001, p. 17). Those purposes included the basic fact that hunting was the main source of sustenance for many colonialists, and that skirmishes with indigenous peoples were common (DeConde 2001). As trade with Native Americans expanded into the exchange of items for European firearms, gun violence proliferated in the colonies (DeConde 2001). Thus, gun violence preceded the Second Amendment in the United States. The Second Amendment is not…… [read more]

Right to Bear Arms - A Constitutionally Term Paper

… Right to Bear Arms - a Constitutionally Protected Right

Today, the interpretation of the Second Amendment has polarized the American people among two different views (Greenslade, 2004). Those opposed to private ownership of firearms argue that there is no individual… [read more]

American Citizens Should Have the Right Term Paper

… American citizens should have the right to bear arms because depriving law-abiding citizens of the right to own and carry a handgun takes away a powerful deterrent to crime. It is the right of every citizen to defend and a… [read more]

Right to Bear Arms Arguing Term Paper

… Right to Bear Arms

Arguing for the right to bear arms is a more complex and challenging task than arguing against it. The key, then, to a successful argument for the position I have chosen is to point out facts and information that would be relevant and convincing to the audience I am going to address. There are various audiences to which my arguments will be addressed. These audiences include the general public and specific sectors relevant to the issue of gun control. These specific sectors include gun owner groups and anti-gun ownership groups. Between these two groups, anti-gun ownership groups would prove to be a more challenging sector to convince than gun owners. The general public is also susceptible to the popular belief that gun ownership is generally harmful to civil society, which could promote a gradual dissent to gun ownership or the right to bear arms.

For the general public and anti-gun ownership groups,…… [read more]

Right to Bear Arms Essay

… ¶ … Right to Bear Arms

The issue of exercising the right to bear arms is, more often than not, associated with the debate on whether or not gun control should be imposed to civil society. The rationale behind gun control is that it is a detriment and threat to civil society, wherein gun ownership could lead to an individual's tendency to resort to using guns or arms as an immediate response to conflicts or misunderstandings. On the other side of the coin lies the issue of one's right to bear arms, an individual right that, ultimately, cannot be questioned because this is a privilege and right already given to the individual prior his/her entering the social contract that led to the creation of the civil society and the government.

Given these opposing arguments for and against the right to bear arms, this research looks at the debate once more, with a thorough analysis of each side to the issue. This research assumes the position that an individual must be given the privilege the right to bear arms or guns. In arguing this position, this research argues that the right to bear arms is not only a measure for self-defense, but also to increase the behavior of preparedness and self-reliance among the citizenry or members of the civil society.

Reynolds' (2007) report on the increasing occurrence of gun ownership among communities in the U.S. supports this argument. In his report, he stated that societies such as those found in Idaho have already imposed ordinances that support citizens to practice gun ownership. In a particular ordinance, Ordinance 208 in Greenleaf, Idaho, the imposition of gun ownership is a legal step that does not aim to counteract an increase in violence in communities, but rather, as a "statement about preparedness in the event of an emergency, and an effort to promote a culture…… [read more]

Right to Bear Arms Should Civil Society Term Paper

… Right to Bear Arms

Should civil society have the right to bear arms? A Critical Look on the Issue of Individualism and Collectivism in the Interpretation of the Second Amendment

In the United States Constitution, the Second Amendment contains the rights of citizens as individuals, of which the 'right to bear arms' is considered part of the conditions stated. The issue of a citizen's right to bear arms, or guns, is a debate that has remained unresolved, especially if a controversial or celebrated case concerning the right to bear arms is in focus.

This research provides an alternative way of looking at this issue, wherein the issue of the right to bear arms is argued based on the judicial system's interpretation of this right: whether the right to bear arms should be interpreted based on an individualist or collectivist point-of-view.

The thesis that will be discussed in this paper assumes the stance that the right to bear arms should be based on a collectivist view, for every individual right, if subjected to interpretations favoring individual purposes only, would defeat the objectives of the formation of the Constitution itself. Thus, in accordance to the objectives of the Constitution, which is to guide both civil society and the political system in governance and to ensure social order, the right to bear arms must be interpreted in the context of the individual vis-a-vis his/her rights' effect on the society. Thus, if the right to bear arms caused or will cause detriment to the civil society, then this right should not be considered an argument for an individual to still attain this right, and held not liable for whatever detriment the attainment of such right has for the civil society or one's community.

This point-of-view was subsisted in Busch's (2003) analysis of the case United States vs. Emerson, wherein the issue of the right to bear arms surfaced. In analyzing the Court's decision to defer Emerson's right to bear arms, Busch stated that…… [read more]

Second Amendment Term Paper

… "

This is exactly the same although in not so clearer way as to the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms is not a right but a privilege and the law upholds that it shall deem when it becomes… [read more]

Law Essay

… Morrison, 1994). Even if Congress might feel that it has a compelling interest in prohibiting sexual violence, it did not have the authority to do so under the Commerce Clause.

The Court has thus tread a thin and one might argue a confusing line in terms of sensitive, hot-button issues such as racial relations, the death penalty, gun control, and sexual violence. While ultimately it adheres to legal interpretations rather than attempts to socially prescribe a particular action as is the job of the legislature, the Court has still been affected by pressures to acknowledge problems in the social environment. In some instances it has done so; in other instances it has not. Regardless, all of its decisions indicate that the law does not exist in a vacuum but is affected by the morals of the age and social context.

Works Cited

"Bearing arms: Second Amendment." Annotated Constitution. 5 May 2014.

D.C. v. Heller. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 4 May 2014.


"History of Brown v. Board of Education." U.S. Courts. 4 May 2014.

"Major Death Penalty Cases in the U.S. Supreme Court (1972 -- 2008). Pro-Con.

5 May 2014.

"Second Amendment." Cornell University Law School. 5 May 2014.

United States v. Lopez. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 4 May 2014.


United States v. Morrison. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 4 May 2014.

.… [read more]

Gun Violence in America Term Paper

… Therefore, it is liberal and enlightened to label American gun owners as deranged and barbaric, as well as anti-citizens engaged in beastly behaviors. Evaluations have accurately described opponents of gun ownership as bloodthirsty demented psychopaths with the primary concept of… [read more]

Gun Violence in Schools Research Paper

… Gun purchase in many gun shops was reported to be on the rise immediate after the occurrence of 911 incidences. According to research by the FBI, six months after the 911 incidence saw an overhauled increase in the number of… [read more]

Guns Don't Kill People Term Paper

… Guns Don't Kill People -- People Kill People

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

The conception to this statement is a true statement regardless how anyone wants to see it. It is cause and effect. The temporal order on how things are done.

There has to be some sort of human intervention.

Guns don't go off on their own, changing human violence to creating peace may have an impact on this phrase.

In the end what will it be, removing guns from everyone's home or removing the people that kill people. The gun is just a tool like any other tool used for whatever purpose it was invented. The same goes for a machete…it was designed for cutting tree limbs and clearing paths, but in the wake of Darfur, it was used to cut human limbs and torsos. The gun is made for target practice, or for self-defense when in imminent danger. People's invisible mentalities are what cause others to die. Not the guns. The gun is not going to hiccup and fire on its own. A relationship has to exist between the two variables.

The saying "guns don't kill people; people kill people" is often used by defenders of the second amendment to justify citizens' right to keep and bear arms. My peer obviously agrees with this statement and has interesting and valid points. But while his assertions are technically correct, some of his assumptions and conclusions are simplistic and questionable and require further clarification. When he says "this is a true statement regardless how anyone wants to see it," he is again oversimplifying the essence of the statement.

Let me explain this with an example. One might propose that the Iranian ambitions to possess nuclear weapons should not be opposed because nuclear weapons do not kill people or do not explode on their own, human intervention is needed. But who is going buy this statement? There is a reasonable ground to think that Iranians may use nuclear weapons if they possess them and therefore the international community wants to deny them the right to own WMD. Although the statement "nuclear weapons do not kill people; humans do" is technically correct, its assumptions are simplistic because in a complex world it is clear that the availability of WMD to all nations increases the risk of the use of nuclear weapons.…… [read more]

Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights Term Paper

… Declaration of Independence & Bill of Rights

What things would I eliminate from the Declaration of Independence? And why? If I were a member of the Continental Congress of the United States in July of 1776, I would have insisted that the document reflect slavery. How can you say, when making a dramatic and politically powerful statement like this one, that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" - when not everyone was equal at all? And in fairness to African-American slaves that were being bought and sold - and beaten by masters throughout the 13 colonies - how can it be said that "all men" are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?

Granted, many of the men gathered at the Continental Congress (Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and several others) wanted to address slavery in the Declaration. They knew that it was important to get the document written and delivered to the King of England, and that it wouldn't be agreeable to everyone. But they also knew it was hypocritical to state that part of the reason the colonies insisted on breaking away from England was because the rights of liberty were being abused by England. The fact is that the kinds of freedom and liberty they demanded from England was being violated by their own colonists who participated in slavery.

The Declaration stated that the "absolute tyranny" and the "history of repeated injuries and usurpations" that the King of England had perpetrated against the colonists were intolerable violations of their rights. But what about the human rights, the civil rights of slaves who were brought over from Africa against their will? The signers of the Declaration referred to the "long train of abuses and usurpations" from England, along with the "Despotism" they suffered under English rule as reasons for the need to break away from England. But "despotism" (one man rules and all the rest are his slaves) is exactly how African slaves were kept as slaves; the master was the despot, and the slaves were obliged to do what he said, or be beaten with whips and chains.

What things would I eliminate from the Bill of Rights? And why? The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. I would consider amending the Amendment II, which reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the…… [read more]

Brady Bill Term Paper

… Brady Bill

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, most frequently referred to as simply the Brady Bill, established a national five-day waiting period for retail handgun purchases (Anderson, 1996). The bill was named for James Brady, the White… [read more]

Amendments US Constitution Term Paper

… Constitution

According to the Second Amendment of United States 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 Fourteenth Amendment provides: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It is sad to know that the highlighted parts of the amendment have been continuously ravaged by the U.S. Supreme Court for several decades. The U.S. Supreme court has had its own interpretations of the second amendment. There have been several landmark cases which have highlighted the interpretations of the Supreme Court.

According to Clayton Cramer's report "the racist roots of gun control" a lot of gun control laws were due to historical injustices. Despite publishing this report crayer hasn't seen much progress either in court or in the eyes of the public. People feel that the state gun control laws were introduced due to racist intentions. This can be attributed to an example below.

The first case of second amendment interpretation in the Supreme Court was the United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). The Supreme Court declared that the right for people to keep arms with them existed prior to the U.S. constitution. Furthermore they believed that such a right was not granted by the constitution and nor could that right be dependent on the constitution for its existence. The lawsuit charged klansmen of preventing African-Americans from fully exercising their civil rights which included the right to bear arms. The plaintiff believed that bearing arms for lawful purposes was their civil right. The court also ruled that the rights granted by the second amendment could not be infringed by Congress and neither could the federal government punish any violation of the right by a private citizen.

There was another case in the U.S. Supreme court Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). This case endorsed the ruling in the Curikshank case. However it ruled that the federal government could take action against individuals who bear arms. The plaintiff Presser felt that the Second Amendment could only be applied through the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore he felt a state did not have the right to forbid individuals to keep and bear arms or to forbid bodies of men who paraded around and associated themselves as military personnel. The court ruled that the law did not prevent individuals from keeping arms but disallowed military activities by armed men who were not in the employ of the state. Therefore the court did not… [read more]

Films Such as "The Ad Term Paper

… The public needs to be educated therefore, to exercise the faculty of conscious thought.

The media has been shown to be a great influence on public thought. The problem of indirectly media-induced gun violence can therefore be remedied by the media as well. The difficulty with this is however that violence and crime are often more sensational than other, more wholesome phenomena of society. The fact that violence is disproportionately represented in the media makes matters worse. This is where the law and government can make a significant difference. Violence can and should be exposed, but so should successful community projects.

Ironically, gun violence often starts with the family that bought a gun in order to protect themselves against this very violence. The greatest tragedy is that children are often either the victims or the unknowing perpetrators of this. Of course the media plays a large part here as well. Children are exposed to violence on television, and parents are not always able to supervise what these children see or what they are encouraged to see by school friends.

In terms of the family, the government could then also form a team with the media to target children with programs that promote healthy family and social relationships rather than public paranoia and weapons. Parents can also be educated through the media to avoid letting their weapons fall into the hands of their children, or even to teach children the correct way of handling a gun.

In conclusion, I do believe that it is possible to curb the problem of gun violence in the United States. But the problem should be examined and accurately assessed. The role of the media should be specifically analyzed and steps should be taken accordingly. Both the media and the government should subsequently take action to educate the public regarding violence and the need for guns for the specific purpose of self-protection. Community policing could also be used as part of the public education team.

Most importantly however, the media should be forced to portray news events in an accurate and balanced manner. For every report of murder or crime, there should be at least one other report of a more wholesome nature. Furthermore society should take its future health to heart and educate children to not only respect guns, but also to respect themselves.


Boihem, Harold. "The Ad and the Ego." 1996.

Burger, Warren E. "The Right to Bear Arms."

Glassner, Barry. Introduction: The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things. "Bowling for Columbine." 2004.

Moore, Michael. "Bowling for Columbine." 2004.

Parenti, Michael. "Methods of Media Manipulation." Media File, 2003.… [read more]

Second Amendment to the Constitution Term Paper


A summary of the mental illness that eventually led Jared Lee Loughner to stockpile both hate and guns and eventually shoot U.S. House Rep Gabrielle Giffords and a judge in Tucson.

Ellis, Ralph. "Adam Lanza's father in 1st interview: He would have killed me 'in a heartbeat'." CNN. Cable News Network, 1 Jan. 1970. Web. 9 May 2014. .

A CNN article that interviews the father of the Newtown shooter and discusses some of the facts surrounding the case.

Gendar, Alison. "Giants receiver Plaxico Burress accidentally shoots himself in thigh." NY Daily News. N.p., 30 Nov. 2008. Web. 9 May 2014. .

AN article that covers the accidental self-shooting of Plaxico Burress in 2008. The event led to Burress being incarcerated and out of the NFL for some time.

Hunt, Albert. "America and Guns, Once More." The New York Times. The New York Times, 9 Jan. 2011. Web. 9 May 2014. .

A summary of the situation with Jared Lee Loughner shooting in Tucson.

Robinson, Marilyn. "Colorado News." The Denver Post Online. N.p., 27 Apr. 1999. Web. 9 May 2014. .

Coverage and summary of the guns and violence in Columbine.

Singer, Natasha. "The Most Wanted Gun in America." The New York Times. The New York Times, 2 Feb. 2013. Web. 9 May 2014. .

Similar to the Glock article below, but covers the AR-15 instead. "Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity Maps." USA Carry. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 May 2014. .

A map that shows where concealed carry is allowed and which states allow reciprocity with others.

Washburn, Michael. "Our Favorite Weapon." The New York Times. The New York Times, 28 Jan. 2012. Web. 9 May 2014. .

A profile of prolific gun maker Glock and their ubiquity in the United States gun culture and the homes of owners.… [read more]

Stakeholder Profile A-Level Coursework

… Stakeholder Profile

Internal and External stakeholders in a coalition plan.

Stakeholders refer to the communities, people, or organizations that directly feel the impact of the decisions and actions of an organization. In addition, a stakeholder refers to anyone with an… [read more]

Egoism Pleasure and Indifference Term Paper

… Ethical Egoism in the Criminal Justice System


Ethical Egoism

This is a sub-theory of the Consequentialism, which states that an action is morally right if its consequences are more favorable than unfavorable (Fieser, 2009). Consequentialist theories attained popularity in the 18th century in answer to the search for a quick way of determining the morality of an action through experience rather than by intuition or an enumeration of duties. The subdivisions of consequentialism include ethical egoism, a theory, which holds that an action is morally right if the consequences are more favorable than unfavorable to its doer (Fieser).

English philosopher Thomas Hobbes advocated that it is better to live in a world with moral rules than one without but for purely selfish reasons (Fieser, 2009). If moral rules did not exist, the person will be subject to the will of other people and their selfish interests. That will put everyone else at risk. But selfishness will incline a person to establish rules on which a civilized community may be built. These rules will forbid lying, stealing and killing. If these rules were constantly enforced, the safety of everyone will be insured. This motivation will lead to the creation of a police force, which will arrest violators of these rules, and a justice system, which will punish violators (Fieser).

Moral Basis

Ethical egoism states that the promotion of one's own good is moral (Moseley, 2005). It is always moral to promote one's own good and never moral not to do so. People have different reasons or motives for their actions but they always act according to those reasons or motives. They may perform the act directly for themselves or indirectly for someone else, for God or for the world. But ethical egoism asserts that people necessarily and ultimately act out of self-interest and never in complete disregard of his self-interest.

In clearer terms, this theory argues that what is good for survival and personal happiness is necessarily moral (Cengage, 2013). Morality is thus premised on one's survival and personal happiness. It follows that people should behave in a way that they deem beneficial for themselves. They need not consider the rights of others for the same conviction. It claims that it is not only immoral but also impossible to act out of a completely selfless act. It perceives even those who sacrifice their lives for others do so from an expectation of some benefit or reward in the life hereafter (Cengage).

Egoism takes other forms or variants, such as psychological, enlightened and practical egoism (Cengage, 2013). Psychological egoism views human beings as natural egoists who are instinctively acting for survival, self-interest and self-preservation. It is not only moral to egoistic but also natural or inborn. Altruistic people who give or volunteer for charity actually seek the psychic and emotional pleasure derived from the act rather than from any selfless reason. Heroes who risk their lives do so because of the greater pleasure they derive from the rush… [read more]

Gun Possession Research Paper

… Gun possession refers to the act of private ownership of the gun by the citizens of any nation across the globe. The act of gun possession might be legal or illegal in accordance with demonstration or illustration of the laws… [read more]

Guns on Campus White Paper

… Guns on Campus

The Case of a Nationwide Ban of Concealed Weapons on Campus

The issue of gun rights ignites a great deal of impassioned disagreement with gun advocates deferring to the U.S. Constitution's protective stance on the right to bear arms and its detractors pointing to the violent and deadly toll which guns have had on society. Today, in the shadow of an array of horrific mass casualty incidences involving gunmen, this issue is as heated as ever. Indeed, the debate is today taking center stage in the university setting, where heightened concern about student violence has come face-to-face with legislative and judicial efforts to create yet more lax gun laws in some campus contexts. It is thus that the discussion here is aimed at students and educators who have a direct interest in limiting the spread of guns and gun violence on campus.


The present issue has been magnified by a March decision by the Colorado State Supreme Court allowing students with concealed weapon permits to carry guns on campus. Frosch (2012), in addition to removing previously existent bans at the University of Colorado and other public universities, the ruling has created a furor among students, educators and others who feel their safety has been undermined by this decision. According to Frosch, "Over the last two months, with the school year in full swing, anxiety over the university's new gun policy has risen -- driven in part by the mass shooting at an Aurora movie theater on July 20 by a troubled University of Colorado Denver graduate student and by the deep scars that still cut through the state from the killings at Columbine High School 13 years ago." (Frosch, p. 1)

Indeed, the debate over this issue has taken on ever greater pertinence in light of a number of incidences that have deprived our students the feeling of safety and security on campus. In fact, since the 1997 Virginia Tech that left 32 dead and 15 more wounded, both sides of the debate have ratcheted up efforts on their respective behalves. Critics of gun violence have indicated that this calls for stronger gun control laws on campus and beyond while advocates of gun rights have seen this as only further justification for the right of other students to arm themselves for protection. This delineates two opposing arguments in a debate which has reached the forefront of the gun law debate in light of recent judicial decisions.


According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, it is incumbent upon individual states to determine the regulatory conditions facing universities where gun control is concerned. The NCSL identifies those 21 states where there is currently a statewide…… [read more]

Gun Ownership Essay

… Gun Ownership

Discuss the results of gun ownership over the more than 35-year history of GSS survey.

Over the past 35 years, gun ownership has decreased. In 1973, those who did not own a gun were just over 50%. Since 1977, gun ownership has consistently dropped and those who do not own a gun have increased. This is indicating that more are choosing to not own guns that may have owned guns in the past. In 2002, gun owners made up 35% of the population. Those who did not own a gun were just over 65%. This is significant, because it is showing how there was a major shift in the people who are not owning guns.

Present four separate line graphs displaying the trends in gun ownership for the people living in different kinds of places.

Big City Residents

Suburb Residents

Small City Residents

Rural Residents

Are urbanites, suburbanites, small city residents, or rural residents who are most or least likely to own guns?

Rural residents are the most likely to own a gun with 60% of these people confirming this. While, those individuals that live in: big cities, small cities and in the suburbs are less likely to own a gun. In the case of big city residents, they are the group that is least likely to own a gun (with this accounting for 90% respondents). The next group not likely to own a gun is: small city residents and suburbanites, with 80% of these residents indicating that they do not own a gun.

What other correlations can be identified with the data associated with gun ownership?

Small city residents displayed the largest increase of those not owning a gun in the past 10 years. Even though more rural inhabitants are more likely to own a gun, as this has decreased and those opting to not own a gun have increased in the past 10 years. This is significant, because it is showing major shifts that have taken place.

However, the speculation that the increase in gun ownership is contributing to more crimes is not indicated by these statistics. As, this was found to not have increased in: the big cities, suburban areas, small cities and rural locations. Three of the four groups studied, all showed that more of the population did not own guns, (which has been increasing for the past 10 years). The one group where more of…… [read more]

Conceal and Carry the "Right to Bear Research Paper

… Conceal & Carry

The "right to bear arms" as quoted in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is controversial, to say the least. The debate is often emotional and overly-analyzing of these words that were written by our… [read more]

Citizens Should Be Allowed Term Paper

… A study shows that when state concealed-handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by about 8%, rapes fell by 5%, and aggravated assaults fell by 7%. Lott (1997) states that criminals are less likely to attack a weaker victim, such as a woman or an elderly person, if there is a possibility that there might be a concealed weapon. JAMA reports studies which show a 15% drop in homicides in areas where adults are allowed to carry concealed weapons (Mitka, 1998).

3rd paragraph -- the (refutation paragraph). Thirty states have lenient concealed-weapons laws, but only in Vermont can anyone carry a hidden handgun without a license or permit (U.S. News and World Report, 2003). Citizens should have the ability to carry a concealed weapon, but this action alone will not ensure their safety. Crimes will still happen and even those who carry handguns will not always act responsibly. However, by having the right to legally carry concealed weapons, people will be able to better protect themselves against the possibility of a fatal crime. The presented statistics from Lott's study show strength in the argument for use of concealed handguns and should at least give pause to those who oppose concealed handguns. Crime fighting methods that potentially offer over an eight percent drop in murder rates are difficult to ignore.

There will always be the debate concerning concealed handgun laws. Those supporting the stricter gun control laws will continue oppose legislation and lobby the government to restrict the use of handguns. However, with citizens being more concerned about their safety and the wave of increased terrorism there should be more support and better legislation to allow citizens the right to lawfully carry concealed… [read more]

Outsourcing Process Analysis Outsourcing Weapons Essay

… With a price tag attached, information is much more digestible. This price tag specifically will translate into the difference what it costs the government of WA to have a police officer process paperwork per hour as opposed to what it… [read more]

Special Interest Groups Essay


Prying the Government Out of their Cold, Dead Hands: United States Policy and the National Rifle Association

The creation of policy in the federal government of the United States is a much more complicated process than many would assume. The complexities that appear on the surface are certainly bad enough; the number of committees, sub-committees, and individuals that a piece of legislation or policy must go through before being enacted (or, more often, shot down or altered beyond recognition) is mind-boggling. When lobbyists and special interest groups are added to the mix, the complexities of the process grow at an exponential level, as the competing interests and incentives to various political figures make public policy less about the public, and more about the dollars that are situated behind the votes. Special interest groups, though minorities themselves, have a great deal of say in the majority whims.

One especially powerful special interest group that derives a great deal of benefit from its power in the federal government is the National Rifle Association. As virulent opponents of gun control, the National Rifle Association has been instrumental in keeping many types of firearms legal and on the streets in numbers that could have been greatly reduced by gun control legislation proposed many times over many decades (Kennedy 1967; Medlock 2006). In so doing, the organization has also ensured its own longevity and continued relevance, as its membership numbers (and the dues that these members pay for the National Rifle Association's activities, lobbyists, and administrators) have remained fairly solid throughout the years of its existence (Kenny, McBurnett, & Bordua 2004). The harm that the NRA's success has brought to the general public is immeasurable.

The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the second amendment to the United State's Constitution, and this has been the basis for most of the National Rifle Association's actions and claims. Despite the fact that tens of thousands of people are killed every year by guns, not to mention the thousands of violent crimes committed with the use of guns that do not result in a death, the firearms industry remains one of the most loosely regulated in the nation (Kennedy 1967; Medlock 2006). In large part, the actions of gun owners and the violence that many of them commit with their weapons cannot be directly lined to the activities of the National Rifle Association, but in other instances there is a direct causal link between the actions taken by the NRA in their lobbying and the rallying of their members and in the levels and locations of gun violence that occur throughout the nation.

One such instance of a direct link is provided by the loophole in Virginia's state law, as well as in other states that have strong membership rates in the National Rifle Association, that allows for guns to…… [read more]

Constitution and the Courts in Canada Research Proposal

… Canada

The issue of firearms is a complicated one that has been scrutinized for many years. The purpose of this discussion is to explore that issue of firearms in the context of the constitution and Canadian Courts. In particular the… [read more]

Letter of Advocacy in Re: Reinstatement Thesis

… Letter of Advocacy

IN RE: Reinstatement of the Non-Violent Convicted Felon's Right

To Bear Arms Upon the Completion of Serving Sentence

And With Ten Crime-Free Years Following That Sentence

And Any Accompanying Probation or Parole Requirements

Dear Honorable Governor of… [read more]

Merit of Insanity Pleas Essay

… Hinckley and the Model Penal Code

When seeking to apply the Model Penal Code test to determine Hinckley's mental state defense and what the jury's verdict would have to be, it is necessary to realize that during the actual trial in which Hinckley critically wounded four men (including then President Ronald Reagan), this test was used. Moreover, the jury's verdict in this instance was that, in accordance to the aforementioned code, Hinckley was legally insane and therefore not guilty. Thus, it is necessary to deduce the specific reasons why this test was able to warrant the defendant not guilty as pertained to the evidence that the jury had about him. Specifically, the Model Penal Code seeks to evaluate the cognitive capability of a criminal to understand that he is engaging in an illegal act, and to demonstrate that his actions are willful (Allen, 1962, 494-495). The latter certainly does not apply to Hinckley, whose particular form of mental disturbance featured an obsession with movie start Jodie Foster. He truly believed that murdering Reagan would galvanize Foster to reciprocate his affection for her -- which he means he was acting under a mentally disturbed compulsion, and was not legally sane.

More than likely, if Hinckley were tried today he would not be able to utilize "the insanity defense" (Gardner and Anderson, 2011, p. 112) to get acquitted of the charges associated with shooting former President Reagan. There are a number of different reasons for such a statement. Firstly, under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, the testimony of psychiatric experts is extremely circumscribed, which means that testimony of such experts attesting to the insanity of Hinckley would likely get suppressed and be rendered inadmissible. Moreover, the component of volition that clearly helped Hinckley to utilize the insanity plea in the original trial is no longer a component of the 1984 Act (Finkel, 1989, p. 403), which means his willfulness to complete the act no longer matters. As the response to the previous question indicates, Hinckley's volition played a major role in his acquittal. With his will having little or no bearing on a trial that took place now in which The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, this crucial aspect of his defense would not be available. Moreover, this act would require Hinckley and his attorney's to prove that he was insane, instead of the federal prosecutors having to prove that he was actually sane. All of these factors would have led a contemporary jury to render Hinckley guilty and not eligible for an acquittal based on insanity.

The historical milestone case involving the Second Amendment that emerged from the events of Hinckley's assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan was District of Columbia v. Heller. In many ways, Hinckley's assassination attempt fueled the debate for gun control in the United States, especially since that attempt came just a few short months after the December shooting…… [read more]

Federalism in the US Term Paper

… Indeed the Congress can command state judges to abide by the federal law, yet state officers are representatives of the state and not the federal system. Further, it was argued that if the Congress would be able to command state officers, the role of the President as the warrant of the federal law would be diminished and the separation of powers would be reduced.

The discussion in court on this case took into account numerous previous rulings on matters of constitutionality. However, the final ruling of the Court to decide against the unconstitutionality of the congressional demand that state officers enforce federal law can be said to have been against the pure nature of federalism particularly because it assured that, even for a limited period of time, Congress was able to impose an action on to the states outside the constitutional limits which allow the legislator to do so in matters pertaining to international issues and interstate ones.

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA) is yet another example in which the constitutionality of the Congress implication in state affairs was put in question. This case takes into account a Supreme Court decision that allows the extension of a Congressional act to state and local authorities. More precisely, under the Commerce Act, employers are obligated to provide minimum wages and overtime payments to their employees. This decision took this Act and applied it to state and local authorities as well. The case in particular was a reaction to the decision of the SAMTA to stop the payment of overtime on the basis that the Congress did not have the authority to impose such regulations on public state authorities servicing traditional governmental activities (Cornell, 2014). The plaintiff demanded payment of the overtime that was guaranteed in the working contract before SAMTA decided it would no longer follow the Commerce Law.

Although the ruling of the Supreme Court was split, the discussions took various turns and included considerations such as the fact that there was no clear distinction between non-traditional government activities and traditional government activities. Furthermore, prior case logs were reviewed and agreed that at the time of the Commerce Law in the 1930s, the economic considerations were different and most transit transportation companies were private, hence at that time exempted from the Commerce Law. Subsequently, decades later this law started to apply to private transit companies as well.

The most important discussion however related to this case is the ability of the Congress to regulate conditions of employment and remuneration of overtime spent in local and state public authorities. Although it was decided that this can be seen as a prerogative of the Congress, the Law was further amended to allow public authorities to offer compensatory time off instead of monetary remuneration. The decision of the Supreme Court further strengthened the authority of the federation against the state structures and to a certain extent can be seen as further limiting the powers and privileges of the state authorities. At… [read more]

Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine Essay

… We learn that at 15 Moore won an NRA marksman award and has been a lifelong hunter and rifle owner." (Kellner 142) Many viewers are practically persuaded to identify with Moore and to attempt to follow his lead by doing… [read more]

Citizen Who Does Not Have a Criminal Essay

… ¶ … citizen who does not have a criminal record should be permitted to carry a concealed weapon.

Permission to carry concealed weapons

In democratic countries, citizens with no criminal record have the right to carry concealed weapons for their own good. It is indispensable for a law abiding citizen to become familiar with all requirements needed by the residential state before applying for a concealed weapons permit. In the United States, candidates must be twenty one years old and legal citizens or residents of any given state with a valid state identification card or a driver's license. Different states further have other requirements that must be fulfilled, for example, in the state of Texas, the permit is given to citizens with no criminal record after they undergo a safety course and the candidates qualify at the range Wellford, John Pepper and Carol 116.

This paper supports the claim that any citizen who does not hold a criminal record can be allowed to poses a concealed weapon because of overwhelming benefits to the weapon carrier and the public in general.


A concealed weapon permit is for the benefit of the general public because criminals are discouraged from attacking someone. When citizen with no criminal records are allowed to carry concealed weapons, research show that crime for example homicide, rapes and robberies are reduced by an 8.5%, 5% and 3% respectively Lott 234.

Citizens who carry concealed weapons also enjoy the right to feel safe when they go outside at night or places that are otherwise considered as risky areas because they have the means to defend themselves. The debate about students in schools carrying concealed guns on the university grounds has stirred debates with those against citing the risk of fellow students while those for the law stating that student would be able to defend themselves following the recent rise in murder incidences of students Bohn 1.

For citizen owning cars also have the right to carry concealed weapons so as to defend themselves against carjackers who may also have other intentions of harming the car owner. The above reasons support the claims that law abiding citizens should be granted concealed weapons for the purposes of self-defense.

Supporting evidence to the…… [read more]

Gun Violence in Australia Case Study

… This brings the focus to whether the national level of government should get involved. The local jurisdictions under federalism are obligated to handle their own affairs and therefore the court rulings will delegate the penalty should a suspected violator indeed… [read more]

Gun Control College Campus Essay

… Concealed Carry on College Campuses:

An Explanation of My Position in Favor of the Bill

My fellow members of the twenty-second congressional district in Texas, I have come to you tonight to explain my position on a peace of legislation that is very important to me -- the recently introduced bill that allows concealed carry permits on college campuses. In light of two of the most devastating and frightening school shootings in the history of this country -- the shooting at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University that occurred last year -- I feel that this is the only way to make college campuses truly safe. By first laying out the facts of my position and then addressing the opposition's argument, I hope to adequately explain why I have chosen to take an affirmative stance on this issue.

After reviewing the appropriate evidence, I remain strongly convinced that allowing conceal and carry permits to extend to college campuses would keep college students, teachers, and all those who have a reason to be on campus safe. While the shooters at both Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University were able to carry out their acts of violence unchecked, I agree with the national approximately 12,000 Students for Concealed Carry on Campus members that believe a citizen with adequate training would have an excellent chance of stopping a shooter before he or she could do much damage (Smalley). I come to this conclusion after realizing that the college campus is an inherently unsafe environment when it comes to shootings, an environment ripe for this kind of tragedy. In fact, because college campuses are often full of green space and include many buildings, it is relatively easy for an emergency to be occurring on one end of campus while the other end of campus is unaware of the tragedy. This situation makes for the possibility that a student or faculty member may inadvertently walk directly into a shooting, creating more casualties (Paulson and Scherer). While changing the environment of the campus would be in opposition to the mood of openness that is so cherished at most universities, prevention is an answer to the problem. University personnel have suggested that determined shooters will always find a way to commit their crimes, but taking preventive measures can protect others from bearing the consequences of those actions (Smalley). A preventative measure that can solve all of these concerns is allowing students and faculty members to carry concealed weapons on campus. This increases the chance that a prepared person with a concealed weapon will be at the right place at the right time. Better than warning and alert systems, this solution does not simply warn others about the incident, but allows for the prevention of violence. And because those who carry concealed weapons are well trained, the solution may also save the shooters' lives. History has shone that most school shooters turn the guns on themselves at the end of their terrific acts of violence. A well-trained citizen… [read more]

123. . .
NOTE:  We can write a brand new paper on your exact topic!  More info.