The New Age Day Of The Wild

Imagine a situation where a big event was taken place and among the many people a mass shooting breaks out killing hundreds until the police shown up 12 minutes later. Concealed carry laws save lives. To start off, it is an Americans constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense. Second, concealed carry is effective and proven to keep civilians safer. “In truth, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” (Chong 27).

In response to these attacks, increasing numbers of Americans are feeling the need to arm themselves as a means of self defense. In response to the shooting in California, local gun shops are noticing roughly a 25% increase in business. Likewise, local Sheriff’s departments are experiencing a large increase in concealed carry permit requests. In Orange County, California, the Sheriff’s department received 130 permit requests in the week following the attack—up from their average of 30—while neighboring San Bernardino County screened seven times their weekly average (Mather). The increase in California gun sales shows that residents want the ability to defend themselves in the event of another shooting—an opportunity these residents would not have as a result of a ban on personal firearms.

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.

One of the main fallacies that the author uses in his articles is a hasty generalization. He uses the example of the Texas shooter and his bad background that would have prevented a weapons liscence to make the generalization that, “ their proposals wouldn’t have stopped any of the other mass public shootings in the last couple decades.” The author does not back this claim up very well and

In class, we had discussed how Texas is individualistic because of its independence traits. Daniel Elazar describes Texas a the lone star; they are getting help from the government, but in the end, they prefer to be free of control. One enormous example is the right open carry. Texas is perhaps the state who exercises this right the most. In 1955, the act was carried and boy, did Texas loved this law. They felt independent, and like if they were their own protection. They did not need any form of police force, or the under thought that the government was there to help them. They were in control of their safety, and will act upon any dangerous encounter. Furthermore, Texas also love to put that sign, “Trespassers will be shot”. It is not uncommon to hear a case in court in which an intruder was shot by a shotgun by the owner, and the citizen is protected by law. There is a national presumption that Texas loves guns, and they aren’t far off. However, guns is a symbol of freedom, and the feeling to be free from any sort of protection of law enforcement is a breather for Texans.

IS THIS ACT A BENEFIT FOR THE SAFETY OF STUDENTS OR A HINDERANCE FOR THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS?

In a nation that prides itself on protecting the rights of all citizens, one right is under a blistering attack. According to the second amendment the “right to bear arms shall not be infringed” but in every corner of America that right is getting closer and closer to disappearing. In the news, Americans only hear of the guns that kill, they don’t hear of the guns that save. The fact of the matter is, the right to carry concealed weapons has saved lives.

There are many types of gun laws in America, one of the most important is the right to conceal carry. The law states that the, “…bill amends the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms.”(public law). The reason this law is so important is it gives the citizen the right to defend his or her self and family from attackers in public. Many people think that the police will arrive and stop a lone gunman but the truth is that, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,’’( LaPierre) said Wayne LaPierre, a top executive at the NRA. Although some people say guns laws help America recent studies find that gun laws actually do nothing to help stop the flow of buying, selling, and carrying guns.

Per a study by the American Journal of Public Health, open carry laws were associated with 23% more suicides and 36% more firearm suicides per capita. In an article written by Chris Eger, he quotes a well-known Fargo citizen who has concerns about the bill. Senator Carolyn Nelson of downtown Fargo said, “I live in downtown Fargo. There are some folks down there that, quite frankly, if they are carrying, I’d be more scared than I am now. I just don’t think this particular bill is necessary.” Another critic of the bill is Cathy Lee who went on record saying, “the clear majority of us North Dakota gun owners, recognize that our permit requirement makes sense, and I hope the governor will veto this dangerous bill so that requirement stays in place.” Overall, the open carrying laws of firearms intimidates the public, wastes law enforcement resources, and creates opportunities for violence to present itself.

With new years day, 2017, Missouri Senate Bill 656 went into effect. A highly contentious change to previous laws, it was vetoed by Jay Nixon, who was in turn overridden by Republican--and one Democrat--state senators. The primary function of the bill, though certainly not the full extent, is to allow all Missouri residents the right to carry firearms concealed in public without a liscense or training. While pro-gun and pro-gun-control advocates both have their laundry lists of arguments and rebuttals, most of what the public hears about gun rights is mere rhetoric, design to sound appealing. For a true understanding of changes in gun laws, the 2nd Amendment must be understood. Senate Bill 656 is a step forward in regards to the 2nd Amendment

December 4, 2015, in San Bernardino, CA, fourteen residents at the Inland Regional Center lost their lives due to Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik shooting many residents. Attending a holiday party at the center for thousands of residents with disabilities, Mr. Farook left the center “angry” over a dispute and came back with Ms. Malik. Armed with .223- caliber assault rifles and semiautomatic handguns, they killed 14 residents and wounded at least 17. Shootings seem to be becoming more habitual, therefore, people fear guns and want to enact gun control laws. Recent attacks from terrorist groups spark the question of who should have the right to own guns. Controversies over interpreting the Second Amendment date back to the turn of the twentieth century because so many viewpoints and regulations have accumulated; it is all in the manner of which interpretation citizens subscribe to- loose verses strict interpretation. Due to the controversies, certain gun regulations have been enacted and fears have risen because of this.

They are opposites of the NRA and believe that looser gun laws lead to violence in America, and believe that this bill impedes the furtherance of the common good (Missouri Times). St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, who is also a member of Everytown, argues that this bill increases the presence of guns in Missouri and propagates a “shoot-first-ask-questions-later” type attitude (Missouri Times). Through Mayor Slay’s statement, it puts our community at risk for more violence than it ever has seen before, simply because of one’s violent disposition for violence when dealing with a dangerous situation.

What brought this law about are the tragedies of 2012 that caused ripples in all ideas for assault weapons. The shootings that lead to this are tragic and not to be overlooked.

Imagine going back a few years, sitting in your kindergarten class learning how to read and suddenly a man in a dark black costume breaks down the door and opens fire; seconds later blood is spewed about the wall, your teacher is dead, and all the children around you are crying. It is situations like this that caused House Bill 60 to be created. This bill “ allow(s) residents who have concealed carry permits to take guns into some bars, churches, school zones, government buildings and certain parts of airports”. (Sayers and McLaughlin) This guns everywhere law should be protected, and everyone should

Although the opponents of open carry are armed with rational concerns, they need not worry about it in the state of California as open carry is prohibited there. California is also one of the most restrictive states when it comes to gun control, yet according to the FBI’s uniformed crime report, California led the nation with 151,879 violent crimes (murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) in 2013. In the state with the highest amount of violent crime, self-defense at home and in public is a necessity, but that necessity is compromised by the prohibition of open carry. The belief that criminals can easily remove a firearm from an individual exercising open carry is absurd considering modern holsters are now designed with retention in mind. Logically, criminals would avoid attacking someone who is exercising open carry due to the likelihood of being killed in an altercation or being forced to kill the individual and face capital punishment. Although people exercising open carry can cause panic from the community and police officers, the issue is generally resolved without complications and programs to raise awareness on gun rights would improve relations. Raising public awareness about open carry would benefit both open carry and the public due to an