Research
Paper Proposal
Tougher Gun Control
The homicide figures, involving
26,513 people in 1991, 1,500-2,800 of these are valid homicides
by civilians defending themselves, and 300-600 are justifiable
killing by the police. This leaves, at worst, 24,713 homicides
in criminal hands, and this includes any method of killing, such
as bare hands and feet. Even if we were to wrongly attribute all
homicides to firearms. This is still only 1.14% of all deaths in
the top 12. You are over 29 times more likely to die of heart
disease than to be a victim of a homicide.
Need research paper proposal? we can write a custom paper for you!
Order Now
There are three approaches. First, all proposals for regulation
of gun sales or ownership seems as an infringement on the
rights, and a sign of the dangers of government incursions on
individual freedom. Second, the policies that challenges to
reduce the illegal use of guns through the deterrent effects of
tougher punishments when guns are used in crimes. Third, like
the school shootings in suburban and rural areas, which is
attributed to cultural factors that inspire violence and weaken
societal controls. Gun violence is related to social and moral
problems and favors policies that would decrease the impulse to
use guns rather than reduce their supply.
The shooting epidemic that disturbed urban America since 1986
has declined noticeably in the past three years, and has been
replaced in the nation's consciousness by the rash of
multiple-victim school shootings that have happened in suburban
or rural areas. However, gun violence remains a mostly urban
event, and policies on gun control will have a far greater
impact on urban areas than somewhere else. To determine the true
meaning of the Second Amendment, we need to look no further than
the writings of those who drafted the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights and the liberal minded men who followed. These men
knew the oppressive power of government directly, and the
ensuing dangers to individual liberty inbuilt in that power.
They knew that government could only be held in check if the
people had a last option, equal in power to the standing armies
of the government. They called this, the militia. The militia is
made up of all fit men of the United States, who are anticipated
to afford their own arms and ammunition, whose duty is to
protect the country from enemies, foreign and domestic. In fact,
according to United States code, every man between 18 and 45 is
already a member of the militia, whether he knows it or not.
Need research paper proposal? we can write a custom paper for you!
Order Now
When they drafted the principles of the militia, one of the most
important duties allocated, is to defend the country from our
own government's armies, should the government ever try to
establish dictatorial rule against the United States
Constitution; the Supreme Law of the United States. They
understood that government often runs amok from the hands of the
people, and they wanted an insurance policy against this very
danger.
This wording of the Second Amendment outlines the militia as
being essential to the security of a free state. While the
militia is composed of the people of this nation, it was
regarded necessary to outline the "God given" or absolute right
to arms for the people, so that there would be no confusion in
the government, because the Constitution was not written as law
for the people of the United States, it was written as law for
Congress and the President.
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms therefore, is a
right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry
in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms. Some may
disagree that there is nothing absolute about the Constitution,
that as a people, we may decide what rights we think are "God
given", and change the constitution at any time to reflect the
new outlook. As for "God given", or whatever other term you wish
to use for this, even the animals of nature will defend
themselves fiercely if need be. What is different about the
animal called "human" which should bar us from this "right" or
"natural process" to self-defense? Is it that the value of human
life is of such immeasurable significance that to take it is a
crime beyond measure?
Need research paper proposal? we can write a custom paper for you!
Order Now
If this is the case, why is it that we permit our police to
carry deadly weapons? If it is not right for us to defend
ourselves, why should the police defend themselves or us either?
Why is it not "correct" to kill a criminal in defense of your
life, but it is "correct" for you to die when attacked, because
you have followed this set of laws, that the criminal ignores?
The government would have us all believe that the only people
who should be allowed to defend themselves or others, are those
who work for the government. I have a problem with this idea,
and I don't know how some people can succeed it, but they do
try. I am not so selfless to think that if another man is
attacking me with intention to gravely hurt, injure or kill me,
that I should not do everything within my power to protect
myself. I will defend myself to whatever level he takes it. To
put it honestly, my life is worth more than the life of a
hooligan trying to kill me, when I have done nothing to earn
such aggression.
Need research paper proposal? we can write a custom paper for you! |
