Pros And Cons Of Stand Your Ground Laws

Trevor Burrus from Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies showed how the use of guns for good are far greater than uses for the bad. “In the past 20 years, the cases of permit holders using their guns improperly are quite rare.”(Burrus 3). This is a problem for gun control because the valid arguable point for it is becoming increasingly smaller. This is also a problem for the media because they report vague negative gun usage rather than positive because a large majority of the media's reporters are liberal gun control advocates. Americans who concealed carry firearms are better off in a defense position rather than an unarmed civilian. “studies have found that Americans use guns defensively between 830,000 and 2.45 million times per year.” (Burrus 2). This is a problem because a very small percentage of gun related incidents make it to the news, therefore people think that there aren't as many firearm crimes than there is, and could potentially be unarmed in an emergency situation. Also this means that since there are this many people using guns defensively, there are people who die innocently because they are unarmed. From this, the government had make the laws that prevent people from being able to defend themselves in desperate defense

Comparing these two cases, the legal system did not really work fairly to show justice because if in accordance with the absolute interpretation of the 8th Amendment and the 14th Amendment, Gregg will never be sentence to death; this not only unfair to him but also disrespects for the authority of the legal system. Let us finally look at the case of “Callins v. Collins” in 1994, in this case, even though the convict Callins was put to death by lethal injection, there was a justice stood up to struggle on save Callins’ life, and his name was Harry Andrew Blackmun, who had voted in “Gregg v. Georgia” to restore the death penalty. Blackmun claimed that he had no longer supported the death penalty because he did not believe that the capital sentencing procedures were still working, and restoring the death penalty was a big

Only this month, 59 were killed and over 500 people were injured during a country music concert in Vegas in what is now known as the deadliest mass shooting in American history. Last year, 49 were killed and 58 were injured in a gay nightclub in Florida. In 2012, a mass shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School took 27 lives, 20 of them being first graders. The list of these unthinkable and stomach-churning acts is quickly turning endless, forcing us to rethink why we truly have the right to bear arms. Many defend the second amendment by claiming we need this right for self defense, which is the most wretched part.When we look at what we have lost compared to what we have earned in this fight to keep the right to bear arms, this privilege does not seem worth the sacrifice of so many lives. In today’s world, we do not defense through guns but from them. Our policymakers keep trying to reach a compromise by putting in place certain regulations. “Some states require would-be gun owners to fulfill a firearms safety course in order to obtain their license.” “Such training courses, however, even when not required, are very advisable for the would-be gun owner, as they ensure that he or she has all the necessary information on liability issues, on safety, and even on care and maintenance of the gun” ( How to Get a Gun License 1). This lack of attention illustrates that despite the multiple tragedies that have taken place in our nation, some states do not even require a simple safety course that ensures the safety of our people. Furthermore, it is required that one must pass a background check. The questions asked on the test are the following:

It appears as though the repetitive and unfortunate tragedies of mass shootings have become incorporated into the everyday life of American culture. We are forced to live in a heightened degree of fear, skepticism, and hesitation concerning our public safety. This phenomenon could reasonably occur in response to the vast ineffectiveness of the country’s current gun laws. Time after time similar misfortunes arise, yet few major changes are implemented to prevent them from reoccurring in the future. We cannot let this trend continue any further. Though some claim that increased gun control is useless and infringes upon the Second Amendment, it limits civilians’ weapons grade, obstructs those deemed unfit to wield such lethal weapons, and insures a greater level of security, thus it should be executed.

The Stand your Ground Law has recently been debated to be a just or unjust law of retaliation. The stand your ground law permits individuals to use deadly weapons when they feel threatened or can be harmed. That means if one feels that they are in fear of losing their life they have every right to defend themselves by any means necessary. This law does not state that if someone is not in the way of facing physical harm or losing their life that they have a right to kill someone else.

Stand Your Ground Laws need fixing because they produce more problems than they solve. There are many gun activists who insist on keeping the Stand Your Ground Law as it is, but is it solving problems or causing more of a problem? The Stand Your Ground Law more than likely will never be abolished because of NRA being such a strong force, however its flaws crucially need fixed. Stand Your Ground Laws need fixed because they increase crime rates rather than decrease them. Also, Stand Your Ground Laws need to be despertaly advised because there are several instances where they are just being exploited or abused. Furthermore, these laws need fixed because the death rate of innocent people is sky rocketing due to this law.

In the past six months, there have been a total of 19,635 gun incidents. Out of those 19,635 incidents, 107 were mass shootings, 829 were home invasions, and 604 were for defensive use, according to Gunviolencearchive.org. It is unbelievable to see the number of gun related incidents that have happened in just the past six months. What is even more unbelievable to imagine is that so many of those incidents could have been avoided if people were allowed to carry concealed guns in certain places. Concealed carry, or concealed weapons, is the practice of carrying weapons, such as a handgun, in public in a concealed manner. All fifty states in the United States allow concealed carry in public places to some degree. But, some places, for example, schools, restaurants, and stores, prohibit concealed weapons. The controversy about whether concealed weapons should be prohibited in certain locations has been debated for years, and more often in the past decade. On one side of the debate, supporters of the “gun-free zones” claim that prohibiting concealed weapons in certain locations will reduce crime and ensure that the location is free of gun violence, allowing concealed weapons can result to more guns landing in the hands of criminals, and some even insist that public safety should be left to professional, qualified police officers, not ignorant citizens with little to no expert training. However, it is absolutely necessary to know that prohibiting weapons in certain locations

There were boycotts of the malls in Baton Rouge, people were marching even holding up traffic. This didn’t only occur in Baton Rouge, but across the U.S. people were standing up for this injustice. Alton Sterling was selling cd in front of a convenience store when two officers approached him, the situation escalated Mr. Sterling was shot several times resulting in his death. Baton Rouge police did not provide much information about what escalated the incident between the officers and Sterling or what prompted an officer to fire his weapon. A witness, however, described police as “aggressive” and said Sterling was armed but was not holding his gun or touching his pockets during the incident. The level of force an officer uses varies based on the situation. Because of this variation, guidelines for the use of force are based on many factors, including the officer’s level of training or experience.

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.

In today’s hot topic news there is constant issues with the Stand Your Ground Law. The headlines, television, and social media are overflowing with cases about shootings all around the country. The Stand Your Ground Law creates immunity for an individual who uses deadly force under the belief that he or she is threatened by another person. This law is also called the Castle Rule. Most of the states in the U.S. have adopted some type of form of this law to protect its residents who may feel the need to use self defense in situations where they may feel threatened. This has mainly became a race issue between white police officers and African American citizens. A solution that we can use to help solve a lot of the crimes that associates with the

Personally, I strongly disagree with the Stand Your Ground Law and believe that the Stand Your Ground law is widely controversial for a plethora of reasons: it promotes violence, it causes major racial issues, it acts as a justifiable excuse for taking another human beings life, and it makes the offender who committed the murder or violent offense feel justified for their wrongdoings. As of late many cases have occurred involving the Stand Your Ground law; however, none have been more controversial, more compelling, or illustrate my views better than the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman case (State of Florida v. George Zimmerman) and the Marissa Alexander v. The State of Florida case.

The use of deadly force in extreme situations goes back several hundred years when it was first admitted as a right during the early nineteenth century as sheriffs realized that they needed to kill certain threatening individuals in order to protect others. Thousands of police officers were killed during the recent decades and this raises an alarm regarding the authority to use deadly force. Individuals criticizing this right have to acknowledge that police officers fight with the purpose of preserving a peaceful world and are constantly exposed to criminals who are unhesitant about

The legal sufficiency of the policy can be called into question anytime force is used. This was first demonstrated in 2000. The state’s policy was revised to explicitly address two subjects. The first issue addressed the act of officers shooting at moving vehicles. This was in response to two controversial shootings that occurred in 1998. Both incidents involved officers firing on moving vehicles after they engaged in high-speed chases for traffic violations. Use of force is not authorized for moving vehicles unless the officer ''reasonably believes: (1) there exists an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or another person; and (2) no other means are available at that time to avert or eliminate the danger'' (Halbfinger, 2000).

Armed police are required to become skilled at responding to events that demand the use of firearms (Fyfe, 1981). Arguments arise from the public's failure to recognise the police’s difficulty in making a straightforward judgment as to whether coercive force or the use of guns is required in events (Dick, 2005). When police do use guns, there is a risk that police may misfire and consequently cause more victims as a result (McCulloch, 1989). Furthermore, in circumstances that require force, natural biological impulses kick in; informally known as the fight or

The use of force, with regards to law enforcements use of it, is a complex topic that should be looked at in all perspectives. There is tension between the police and the community they work for, on whether this is a power that the officers should have or not. There are ambiguous laws that do not give law enforcement offices much guidelines on what is exactly permissible when it comes to force, and all the different situations it could occur. The line that the use of force leis on is often a fine one. It is teetering between excessive force and never being able to enforce the laws. The use of forces is a conversation that is worth having with all the pros and cons that it brings to the discussion board.