Second Amendment and Gun Laws Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

routine Amendment and Gun Laws - Research Paper ExampleOn the other(a) hand, there ar those who believe that in accordance to the second amendment of the Ameri mass constitution individuals should be allowed to accept a gun so that they commode protect the their lives if it comes to that (Gerber, 2011). To be able to critically look at the issue, the best way to look at credit lines is from both sides. Nevertheless, it is apparent that it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. Those who cope that civilians should not be allowed to own a gun argue that guns are likely to be abused by individuals who mean harm to other hoi polloi. They argue that, if individuals are allowed to own opuss and keep these guns in their homes, criminals can steal these guns and cause harm to the owners or even other people outside the family. If this happens, it would mean that allowing people to legally own guns would lead to criminals easily irritateing gun s. While this argument looks very valid and solid, there are a number of issues which are overlooked (Gerber, 2011). First, this argument is do in the assumption that criminals dont have access to guns already. As Ayoob (201) truth is that even if justness abiding citizens are denied the secure field to own a gun, the criminals provide still be able to access the guns and continual to harm law abiding citizens who are helpless because they cannot defend themselves. For a long time, the brass has failed to cramp down on illegal firearms dealers, and this has mean that criminals have arms. In other words, the government has staggeringly failed to protect the lives of people especially those of law abiding citizens. Every day, incidents of home burglary cases in which the victims get harmed sometimes to the extent of losing their lives happen across the United States. In this case, the individuals should be able to be given the right to protect themselves. Even with all the effor t that the police departments in the United States have made to fuddle sure that individuals are well protected, the accompaniment of the matter is that crime still happens in cases where the police are not able to protect the victims. Denying people the right to legally own a firearm can be seen as a major violation of human rights especially in the light of the fact that the government is not able to offer personalised protection of each and every human world in the states (Gonzales, 2007). Unless the government is able to either completely curb out illegal guns or to slope personalised security for every individual, then every individual should be given the right to own a firearm to protect themselves and their families. The other argument, which has been forwarded by those who oppose the right for civilians to own a firearm, is that the firearm can be used in the family to trauma other family members. Like most other arguments regarding the right to own a firearm, this argu ment is misguided and misadvised (Thompson, 2011). The reason for this is the fact that the chance of a gun macrocosm stolen by a criminal or being used by a family member to hurt another member is much smaller than the chance that the individual will be able to safely keep the gun and use it to protect their lives and those of their lives. This argument is based on the argument that some owners will be careless with firearms, and this may lead to harms done. In fact, as Halbrook (2012) says, opponents of the second amendment provisions argue that if people are allowed to have guns in their houses, they are more likely to cause harm within their households than they are to protect the same family with the fire arms. They argue that most families who have guns in their house end up having one member of the family harming another member of the family with the gun. This argument again is misleading because