Shooting An Intruder Vs. Safety

In the 21st century, raging riots are common in the United States of America. In fact, the diversity of opinions often leads to dissension and discord, and with these unstable circumstances, crimes of passion can occur quite frequently. Specifically, terrorists, murderers, bombers, and other mentally incompetent people remain discreet predators among the innocent. However, many would argue that guns, especially the rise of automatic weapons, have only led to the increase of such violence. Concisely, guns, whether hand guns, rifles, or shotguns, have led to a multitude of problems for both those that wield them and those that fear them because of the dangerous situations that can result.

People who appreciate activities like shooting competitions and hunting, use firearms responsibly. This use contrasts with other uses, which often result in consequences that can be both intended and unintended. With past and present mass shootings, and acts of bloodshed perpetrated with the usage of weapons; has triggered a focus on gun control that once again has been brought into the spotlight. The purpose of the ongoing gun argument addresses the crimes that are committed with guns. This issue of gun control separated people into two groups: those who believe that carrying guns might prevent some crimes and fatalities, and those who don’t. There are individuals who believe absolutely the reverse: that more crime and deaths

Considering the stable condition of the US military and the homeland security systems, the country has the most advanced security system that assures citizens of their safety. Regardless, there exists no need for such extreme measures such as civilians being in possession of assault rifles as a strategy to self-defense. If necessary, cases of self-defense on the part of civilians are well handled by ownership of merely concealed pistols that from records are efficient in subduing any intruder while waiting for law enforcement back up. From self-defense and securing property, civilians’ reluctance to support the gun laws on such high caliber weapons has been underwhelming. Their standpoint has been in possession of such assault weapons. The same standpoints have been the cause for such raging debates on the support or disregard of the government proposition to have the assault guns banned from civilians possession (Miller 533).

(Lott 12) in the United States there are 80,000 to 82,000 defensive uses of guns during assaults, robberies and household burglaries. Out of the 1,000,000 times guns are used for defensive reasons in the world 400,000 of theses cases have saved lives or prevented lives from being taken. (Lott 2) The use of guns by law-abiding citizens may create a positive externality for others. Therefore, when a person is going to commit a unlawful act on someone they might be reluctant because they have no way of telling if they are carrying a weapon or not. Our country is very restrictive when granting the public to own or carry guns. Therefore, our government came up with the "Shall Issue" law, which prevents anyone to own, or posses guns that have a record of criminal injustices or a record of mental illness.

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.

There have been many times where people in stores, at house and even in the streets have done self protection with the usage of guns. 9 out of 10 times a criminal is going to flee the place if he or she notices that person with a gun. A victim of rape, Kimberly Corban, ask Obama in a press conference of how she is suppose to protect herself and her children if another accident happens. Another example of how owning firearms are a key part of self protection is how they can can scare people off that put you in danger. A man from Texas, James Gerow, woke up hearing an intruder in his house. He quickly walked out of his room noticing a man wearing a dark hoodie how shouldnt have been in his house. James grabbed his gun and chased the man outside where the cops have arrived and took the criminal to the nearest prison available. Therefore, many people use guns to protect themselves. James used the gun for self protection and he did not shoot at the intruder. This means if the usage of guns is taken away from the people that live in the United States how are they suppose to protect

Dr. Jeffrey A. Roth states that “research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder. The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death.”

Grier, Peter. "Gun Control 101: Do Americans Often Use Firearms in Self-Defense?." Christian Science Monitor, 30 Jan. 2013. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,custuid&custid=s8455861&db=mih&AN=85265618&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

As written in the article “Self-Defense Laws: Should States Expand Self-Defense Laws to Legally Protect the Use of Deadly Force, Even in Public Places?” “Those new laws have caused a stir among many gun control advocates, who argue that they will create a "Wild West" mentality in which people will settle disputes with gunfire and bloodshed” (Self-Defense). They may not totally be wrong. All it could take for someone is a wrong action or few choice words, and a person with a short fuse could be set off. This type of action is not right and is not justifiable by any means; It should strictly be only used in a life-or-death situation. Not because someone called somebody else

Guns are like pencils. They could be used to write a chemical equation in order to cure ailments or used to spin tall-tales wreaking havoc. In the article “14-year-Old Boy Shoots Armed Intruder in Home”, by Richard Nance using information from the Associated Press, the article deems this child a hero. On Saturday, June 23, 2012, “ a 14-year-old … boy”(Nance 1) safely removed his eight year old and two twelve year old siblings and “armed himself with a handgun”(Nance 3). Like a superhero, the young protector was able to shoot the man, breaking into his home, without the man harming anyone. Without the gun, this boy and his siblings may have been hurt or even worse, killed. Recently, there has been a press to ban assault weaponry. Studies

While the concept of self defense is common sense, determining what are legal means is complicated, to say the least. We have to strike a balance between absolutely no

At the same time, weapons can protect from crime. Police are equipped with guns. The military uses rifles and explosives to “secure the blessings of liberty.” And yes, weapons can be used to defend one’s self in their own home. The castle doctrine, more commonly known as the “Make My Day” law, states that if someone is attacked on their property, they may use deadly force to defend themselves. There was a road rage case in Florida where castle doctrine was used. A couple was driving and got into a minor car accident. The passengers of the other vehicle started to beat the woman’s boyfriend, and she stabbed them both in self-defense. Some witnesses declared that if the woman had not acted, her boyfriend would have been killed.

Imagine somebody breaking into your home with the intentions of hurting you and your family and trying to take all your valuables that you own in your house, and not having anything to protect your loved ones. Without the protection of a firearm, the intruder could injure or kill all members within the household easily. In the United States, according to the Bill of Rights, a citizen has the right to bear arms, however, recently people have started to believe that guns only incite violence and therefore gun laws need to be more strict. Although, If you own the firearm for the right reasons and go through the process of having a carrying license, then that is within your rights to protect yourself and be able to own the gun. Therefore,

This paper will explore the history of guns, myths and realities of gun violence. Gun violence is a hot topic in America today and some may believe that America was built on gun violence. This country was colonized by the use of violence with guns. We’ve had wars since the invasion of this country. The violence has been around also with the well-known 1775 speech from Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death” (Jr.). Give me death is a very strong statement that to me means this is of a violent nature. Since then violence with guns would only escalate from taking land to taking lives whether it be homicides, suicides or threats of violence against one another. With the violent history of gun violence in America and so many different opinions, who or what is responsible for the destruction on self and society and what are the some of the ways to discourage these behaviors.

Although, when people think of self defense they tend to think that means killing someone if they were to break into their home, but the castle doctrine specifies that, a person may not use deadly force upon another person unless: he or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson or any forcible felony (Senate). You may use excessive force if a person who illegally enters, remains after illegally entering, or attempts to illegally enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle legally occupied by such person. A resident does not have to retreat from his or her home or vehicle when a burglar is breaking and entering.