A Weapon for Self Defense: Criminal Law and Procedure

FBI statistics accumulated on a countrywide level show that in states that have strict gun control laws, there are higher crime rates. If gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime! For instance, New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as “the most stringent gun law” in the nation in 1966; two years later the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled. In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977. In opposition, states with liberal gun carry laws have much lower crime rates. In Florida the homicide rate dropped from 37 percent above the national average to 3 percent below the national average after the state changed its concealed carry law in 1987. In 1987, Florida’s murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 compared with the national rate of 8.2. By 1992, the national rate had risen to 9.3 per 100,000 while Florida’s had dropped to 9, and in 1993, it continued to drop another .3 to 8.7 per 100,000. Between 1987 and 1992, rape increased nationally by 14.4 percent. But in Florida, it increased only 2.9 percent and in 1993 rape in Florida decreased .2 percent. Florida issued 204,108 concealed carry licenses during the first six and half years

This discussion addressed the 2nd amendment in relation to the 21st century. Considering the most recent attacks on society, this issue is being highly addressed throughout America, and this discussion follows just that. Throughout this event, the speakers analyze the words behind the 2nd amendment, described the increase in police brutality in relationship to guns, and illustrates the connection guns have in history.

The study found that “states with the strictest gun control laws had lower rates of gun-related homicides and suicides.” Although this result cannot draw a causal relationship between gun control policies and homicides, it proves that legislative strength and firearm deaths and ownership are negatively correlated.

Current Gun Control regulations do not deter violence and crime. It has been shown that places that have relaxed their gun control laws have a higher crime and death rate. Data proves that homicide rates “[...] among the metro areas whose principal city is in a state that requires some form of permit to purchase a gun, is 4.32 per 100,000 residents, compared with 5.74 among cities in no-permit states”(Bailey). This is evidence that there is a correlation between gun control and death rates. It is also proven with statistical evidence that places with the least amount of gun control have the most violence. Statistics show that “‘none of the states with the most gun violence require permits to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Gun owners are also not required to register

The article “Shootings Test Limits of New Self-Defense Law” by Ralph Blumenthal tells the story of Joe Horn, a man in Texas, who shot two men in what he claimed was self-defense under the recently instated “castle doctrine.”

It is very important to notice that the matter of regulation, first of all, refers to concealed guns. Lott (2013) states that the problem of allowing concealed handguns--but not openly carried handguns--is based on the argument that “when guns are concealed, criminals are unable to tell whether the victim is armed before striking, which raises the risk to criminals of committing many types of crimes.” The author also speculates that, on the other hand, when “open-carry” handgun laws are adopted, the defensive ability of a potential victim is immediately identified by the criminals, which makes it easier for them to choose the most vulnerable target (Lott, 2013, p. 6).

In America, the average amount of people shot per year is 100,000; over ten thousand defenseless people are murdered. The Second Amendment’s proclamation that “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” has been an extensive topic of debate. Moreover, the amendment has been one of many debates over the several years throughout America. The discussion of gun control is often debated as to whether or not it is morally right to legally bypass the Second Amendment to avoid unlawful uses of arms. The Second Amendment allows citizens to carry firearms specifically for protection, gun control hinders that right and places civilians’ lives in danger. In short, the U.S. government’s intrusive restrictions on gun laws prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves with firearms.

Gun violence is one of the most serious problems in the United States. Each year in the U.S., more than 35,000 people are killed by guns, a death rate much higher than that in any other industrial nations. In 1997, approximately 70 percent of the murders in the United States were committed with guns. However, ironically, the United States also is the country that has the most gun control laws. Gun control laws generally focus on passing legislation—by local state, or national government—to restrict legal ownership of certain firearms. Seemingly, gun control laws may decrease criminals’ access to guns, but in fact the same laws also have their negative effects. Thus, the controversy over gun control is always heated. But my paper is not

In recent years, the self-defense doctrine in several jurisdictions has been changing. Some jurisdictions have started using “stand your ground” laws, which change the traditional requirement that the person being attacked must “retreat to the wall” before using any kind of force. Proponents’ arguments include that the law merely codifies an individual’s deep-rooted right to defend oneself. Opponents’ arguments include that the law creates a “license to kill” and has negative racial implications.

Lott Jr. “States that implemented ‘shall-issue’ concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robbery by 3%” (Concealed Guns ProCon.org). Lott is an economist and political commentator who analyzed this data in a study during 2000. Also, states with more restrictive concealed carry weapon laws had a 10% higher murder rate. These statistics clearly reflect the advantages of having concealed carry policies and the disadvantages of not having policies implemented. These statistics also show that concealed carry does indeed deter criminal

Some people think if they have a gun in their house, they will have a way of protecting themselves in case of an emergency, but while others who are against it believe it is a danger. For example, the gun could end up in the wrong hands, such as a young child. The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States that governs the nation giving America the rights and freedom. In a different context, Professor Amar’s discussion of whether the right to keep and bear arms should be considered a “privilege or immunity” focuses on the Blackstonian notion of the rights of the individual. Liberties held at common law that fell within this concept of individual right constituted privileges or immunities. According to Blackstone, “personal security, personal liberty, and personal property” were the individual rights. Blackstone considered the right of self-preservation to be essential to individual liberty and, as such, the ultimate right. The individual right to “have arms” was essential to protect these rights (Blackman and Shapiro 79). The constitution gave people the right to own a gun, but others believe that we should not have that right. The American constitution quotes, “The Glucksberg test recognizes the right to keep arms for defense of person and property as a privilege or immunity

Recently, the topic of gun control has been at the top of everybody’s list in regard to what this country needs to focus on. With the recent tragedies in Las Vegas and Orlando, some may claim that giving more people the ability to carry a concealed weapon would deter some criminals from committing crimes due to fear of failure. This theory was discussed and tested in an article by David Fortunato entitled, “Can Easing Concealed Carry Deter Crime?” This article shows results of many surveys and case studies completed within the US regarding topics like types of permits, ease of issuance, and the perceived number or carriers per state. It then goes on to break down this data, and draws a conclusion from it that may surprise some.

Further, despite the fact that gun ownership in the U.S. increased enormously during the 1990’s, there was a consistent, dramatic reduction of criminal violence. In fact, homicide and violent crime have plunged over the last 15 years. Considering that 18 of 25 countries surveyed had an increase of violent crime, America’s large decline is impressive. Moreover, Norway, Finland, Germany, France, and Denmark also have a high rate of private gun ownership, and the murder rates in these countries are as low as or lower than developed nations with less gun ownership (Kates & Mauser, 2007).

Defenders of the death penalty often claim that the execution of criminals will teach others not to do bad, initially decreasing crime rates. This hasty form of generalization statistically proves to be wrong. “When it comes to criminals, Texas has the toughest punishments along with a strict court system. The state of Texas spent four hundred and seventy million dollars in 2001 just for punishing convicts. Despite all that money and stern punishment, the crime rate is still twenty four percent higher than the national average, according to 2003 data” (Gonzales). This supports the fact that tough punishment doesn’t necessarily help crime. Ironically, the harshest state in the U.S continues to house the maximum number of criminal acts. The death penalty, a harsh form of punishment, clearly doesn’t lower crime rate.

“The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to