Citizens must defend right to bear arms
Posted September 9, 2012 at 4:01 pm in Columns, Featured, Opinion
Two stories have dominated the news cycle over the last couple months: the upcoming presidential election and multiple shocking instances of gun violence.
Yiwen Fu | Daily Trojan
The mass shooting in an Aurora, Colo. movie theater in July, the murder of Sikhs in a Wisconsin temple in August and the shooting at the Empire State Building a few weeks ago have rendered the fight over the Second Amendment one of the most important civil liberties struggles of our generation.
Though these recent gun-related instances of violence were nothing short of appalling, our shock — personally and nationally over what seems to be an increase in mass shootings — must not cloud our understanding of the importance that the right to bear arms holds in our free society.
Rather than restricting access to firearms for everyone, we need to remind policymakers that we will not allow the inexcusable actions of a few crazed and evil individuals to curb upstanding citizens’ constitutional right to protect themselves. In fact, what these events should make clear to us is that these rights must extend outside of the home so that law-abiding citizens can protect themselves in public — should any similar events happen in the future.
The passage of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (H.R. 822) in the House of Representatives last November constituted a step in the right direction. If passed in the Senate, the bill would allow non-resident citizens with valid concealed carry permits issued by their home states to carry their weapon in other states where concealed carry is legal, essentially streamlining concealed carry standards nationwide and allowing qualified citizens to defend themselves more easily.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely to pass in the Senate, especially in light of the recent tragedies.
According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, about 70 percent of all homicides throughout the United States in 2007 were committed with a firearm. Gun control advocates constantly cite disturbing statistics such as this figure, but what they fail to consider is how much lower this number could have been had more victims and bystanders had a weapon to protect themselves.
According to the FBI’s Annual Uniform Crime Report, states that widely allow concealed carry — “right-to-carry” states — have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates and 30 percent lower homicide rates than the country as a whole. Evidently, the presence of law-abiding citizens who carry firearms can serve as a significant deterrent to violent crime.
Passing laws restricting access to guns will do nothing to stop the violence perpetrated by the James Holmeses of the world. Criminals commit reprehensible, illegal acts exactly because they have no respect for the law.
Why would they have any more respect for stricter gun laws? If the prohibition of drugs has not reduced drug use and drug-related violence, what reason is there to believe that the prohibition of guns will stop criminals from getting and doing what they want?
This is not to say that anyone should be able to buy guns from their local street corner. Detailed background checks should continue to be regularly conducted upon any and every gun purchase. But there should also be a system implemented that raises red flags whenever an individual purchases large quantities of ammunition and multiple weapons. With a system such as this in place, people like James Holmes would no longer fly under the radar in mass ammunitions acquisitions.
There is no clear-cut way to predict gun violence. Violence unfortunately forms a part of human nature, and when coupled with the presence of mental infirmities, it is near impossible to pinpoint if or when a person will endanger his or her own, or other’s lives. Continuing to throw restrictive legislation at the problem, therefore, is ineffective.
The recent incidents of gun-related violence render it increasingly clear that citizens cannot rely solely on the government for protection from harm. Law enforcement officials cannot be everywhere at all times, and citizens need to have the means to defend themselves should a threat to their lives arise.
The unspeakable events of the last few months should serve as reminders of the necessity to defend, not spurn, our Second Amendment rights more than ever before.
The right to bear arms essentially equates the right to protect one’s own life, and restricting this would not bode well for Americans and their most basic civil liberties.
Sarah Cueva is a junior majoring in political science and Middle East studies. Her column “Leaning Toward Liberty” runs Mondays.
Also in the Daily Trojan:
Tags
This article is tagged: aurora, empire state building, Gun Control, gun violence, law center to prevent gun violence, mass shootings, right to carry, second amendment
Loading ...
In most states, one must undergo a very lengthy training (sometimes over a two-day period), with a range test as well. Then, it is up to the local police/sheriff to conduct a thorough background check on each person requesting the LTC, and the Police can select which level to grant, if at all. For example, an LTC to carry to and from the range only, or an LTC ‘for all lawful purposes.’
It is up to the individual to maintain integrity, to practice shooting, but also to train on being disciplined with regard to the firearm. We take a lot of training and have much respect for the firearms we carry, as well as knowing and understanding our responsibilities while having that firearm in our possession. We take this responsibility very seriously.
This is how the law-abiding, licensed citizen lives.
Anyone using firearms to commit their crimes would likely have committed them with or without firearm, certainly not legal, and therefore, no law could ever stop them. Laws are made only for those who will not break them – for those who will break them, the law is of no consequence.
BTW, a friend, who carries, was in his car in a parking lot when a man jumped into the passenger seat and said “I’m going to Springfield!” Friend pulls his pistol out, points it at the guy and says, “Not in this car.” and the man got out of that car and ran off. If friend hadn’t done that, he could have been car-jacked and worse…
Why do we have to become a victim to someone who would likely have gotten off with no punishment?
Have a nice day!
1. First of all, the argument that if we all had guns the world would be safer because we could shoot criminals is absurd. I do not want to live in a society where I have to have a gun to feel safe. When we are all armed that is the end of civilian life as it is currently understood. We have the social contract for a reason.
2. No one is arguing that we should “restrict firearm access for everyone.” This is the classic straw man argument. Those of us in favor of more guns laws, think that this belief is warranted by the fact that people like Erik Harris, James Holmes, and others can get so much weaponry, so easily. We are not arguing about the second amendment; we are identifying a problem (maniacs acquire firearms so easily and kill inoccent people with them) and are searching for solutions.
3. Finally, your argument that “The recent incidents of gun-related violence render it increasingly clear that citizens cannot rely solely on the government for protection from harm” is self fulfilling. Of course a government that has so little gun-control laws and a hegemonic political platform that any gun control is sacrilege cannot deter violent crime effectively. But that is a reflection of the government as it is current constituted, not government itself. Do not deal in platitudes.
Finally a respectable opinion. As someone very familiar with the Aurora shootings, let me ask you this, Sarah: if people would have all started opening fire in that crowded theatre, do you honestly believe it would have helped? No. More chaos would have erupted, and we may be looking at something even worse. 1990 called – it wants your tired “theyre gonna take our guns away” nonsense.
Fake George above
I am reminded of the writtings of one of our republics founding fathers (he helped write the 2nd amendment):
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I
advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives
boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the
ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no
character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion
of your walks.”
Thomas Jefferson, August 19, 1785
As a former police officer in California, I never came across a person who carried a concealed weapon, who had a right to carry it, to be other than an upstanding law-abiding citizen. I was never afraid of a citizen who was licensed. Finally, the point is well made that if our republic is unable to stop the flow of illegal drugs today, or alcohol during prohibition, how do you intend to stop firearms which are legally owned today? It is a fools errand, that will never be accomplished.
The Govt should also have the responsibility of tracking who they have rendered this privilege to. Similar to how no 16+ year old Tom, Jane and Harry are permitted to drive a vehicle without a driver’s license (which may be suspended or revoked based on behavior), no Dick, Sarah and John should be permitted to use a weapon. There should be regular tests and license/weapon should be suspended based on behavior. Also type of firearms should be restricted, mass murder weapons capable of shooting hundreds of rounds automatically should be barred. To say that a criminal would do whatever they want regardless of regulation is right, but the opportunity to become a mass murderer is just significantly easier with an unchecked 2nd amendment. This is the only condition I am willing to support the 2nd amendment. It is an old and antiquated “right” and needs to be amended for the modern world.
Everyone is entitled to their opininon, no matter how ignorant and misinformed it might be as it is in your case. The first amendment gives you the right to express that opinion and the second one protects it. People who are willing to give up rights for the “modern world” are doomed to have no rights whatsoever. Your fears about every Dick, Jane, and Henry owning mass murder weapons are completely unfounded. Go to a local gun shop and try to but an automatic weapon and see what they tell you.
Great article!