Pros and cons of gun control: Part II

No "one size fits all" rule. With gun control, laws would lie in the hands of state and local governments. This would allow states and local governments the ability to decipher what is best for their community. Places with higher crime rates would probably need more strict gun control laws while areas of lower crime would enforce less strict gun control. This would eliminate  the "one size fits all" aspect of gun control since every area is different while concurrently allowing local governments the ability to tailor laws to fit their needs.

The Second Amendment reads: “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." These words have generated considerable controversy as part of the debate over gun control. Activists for stricter controls generally contend that the amendment was meant to protect the collective right of states to maintain military units. Their opponents respond that the amendment was intended to protect an individual right. Noting that in the eighteenth century, the militia was composed of the entire free white male population, who were expected to bear their own arms.

In conclusion, the gun control debate will not cease soon. It's one of the most heated debates of our generation. Like all rights of Americans, the rights exist because you are a person. The Constitution is a contract we have with the central government to protect those rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic. One of the enumerated rights is the right to keep and bear arms. It seems that proponents of gun control lack a fundamental understanding of the Second Amendment and the dignity it provides the American people as it affirms their last line of defense against tyranny.

Sources:

Clabough, R. (2011). Second Amendment Rights Once Again at Risk.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/7178-second-amendment-rights-once-again-at-risk

Answers.com. (2011). Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-ii-to-the-u-s-constitution

Dotree, P. (2009). Pros and Cons of Gun Control in the U.S.

http://www.edubook.com/pros-and-cons-of-gun-control-in-the-us/19117/

Pros and cons of gun control: Part I

Gun control debates could very well be the most heated issue of our lifetime. The battle has been on-going and isn't anywhere near being over. Both sides of the plain, gun control and pro-gun advocates are very passionate about their causes and beliefs. This makes it difficult to approach the issue with reason. Gun control is an issue that every American should be aware of. The people we elect into office directly affect our lives. Nowhere else could that be more pronounced than when it comes to gun control.

It is simply reasonable to assume that tighter control of gun laws would lead to less shootings. By constricting use, you cut down on gun crime. At the same time, tighter gun control laws might actually lead to more crime. For the most part, firearms cause more harm than good. Yet, numerous crimes are prevented by guns. Potential criminals are scared away from home invasions and other types of crime, simply by the threat of a gun. To eliminate that threat and tightly control gun use could therefore inevitably lead to more crime.

The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights is an almost-sacred document to Americans. No legislation should have the power to take that away. At the same time, the type of arms you have the right to bear should be negotiable. However, gun control activists believe that adding stipulations to gun ownership is not a restriction of a citizen's rights. Preventing gun owners from buying especially dangerous firearms, such as deadly assault rifles, is not unconstitutional. Neither is using the law to ensure that only law abiding citizens are able to obtain guns.

Sources:

Gun Owners Foundation. (2004). "Gun Control Fact Sheet 2004."

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Burnett, D. (2011). "Who is the armed citizen?"

NRA Publications. America's First Freedom.

http://www.nrapublications.org/a1f/ArmedCitizen1.html

Dotree, P. (2009). Pros and cons of Gun Control in the U.S.

http://www.edubook.com/pros-and-cons-of-gun-control-in-the-us/19117/

"Pros" of gun control laws

The long-standing debate over the right to bear arms has affected almost all fifty states. The people against gun control laws are the ones that feel their protection will be guaranteed by carrying a firearm. Citizens carrying guns may become an issue in regards to posing a threat to law enforcement. Gun control laws have been implemented to curb the amount of firearms in the streets. Gun control laws are thought to ultimately benefit American society as a whole.

It is thought that both direct and indirect violence would be greatly reduced with gun control laws. With the process of obtaining a firearm non-existent,  direct gun violence, such as gang shootings or robberies, would be lessened. As well, indirect violence, such as accidental shootings, would also be greatly reduced. Another obvious pro of gun control laws is the process of purchasing a firearm. A criminal background check is run, to eliminate criminals with an extensive history, persons with a mental illness, etc., from obtaining a gun.

The government can also regulate what types of firearms are sold. For example, high-powered assault rifles, machine guns, and larger pistols that don't serve much purpose. There are two purposes guns are supposed to be used for : protection and hunting. Therefore, by removing the larger, more powerful weapons, that are usually only used by military and law enforcement personnel, will lessen the amount of extremely dangerous weapons on the streets.

First of all, in regards to the liberals who want to make it impossible to obtain a firearm legally, I cannot stress enough, that this will not keep guns out of the hands of the criminals. Criminals have obtained guns illegally for the most part and will continue to do so if it is made impossible to legally possess a firearm. Criminals are called as such because they have a tendency to not follow rules. What makes the government think that passing such laws will keep guns out of criminals hands? As i've said in previous blogs, taking away law-abiding citizens right to bear arms will create a safer working environment for criminals.

Sources:

Gun Owners Foundation. (2004). "Gun Control Fact Sheet 2004."

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Burnett, D. (2011). "Who is the armed citizen?"

NRA Publications. America's First Freedom.

http://www.nrapublications.org/a1f/ArmedCitizen1.html

Arnold, D. (2010). List of pros on gun control.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6693334_list-pros-gun-control.html

Guns on College Campus: Part II

In this blog, I'm going to explain the reasons that I believe concealed carry should be allowed on a college campus. There are pros and cons to this proposed idea, like any other idea, but in my opinion, the pros do outweigh the cons. As a law-abiding citizen, I am licensed to carry a concealed firearm in the state of Pennsylvania, what I don't necessarily understand is that there are certain bulidings and places where I, as well as other licensed carriers, must not carry my gun. Anyone who already legally carries a concealed firearm under existing law, is no different on campus than off-campus. After all, under current law, armed citizens can carry a concealed weapon into literally thousands of places throughout their state, including movie theaters, restaurants, banks, shopping malls, churches, and grocery stores, and have done so responsibly for years.

"Gun-Free Zones" don't work. Signs around campus that state "no guns allowed" has never stopped a criminal offender from doing so. Through this logic, it is illegal for law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm on campus, however, criminal offenders (illegally as well) will still continue to do so. In fact, no law will ever affect criminal behavior because criminals, by their very nature, do not follow the law. What these signs actually do is advertise to criminals a defense-free zone, removing legal guns and forcibly disarming potential victims. Criminals don’t take time to register their firearms or obtain permits for their murder weapons. Virginia Tech among other college shootings demonstrate that.

Many students would state that they would not feel safe if concealed carry was allowed. Concealed carry was banned at Virginia Tech for this very reason. On April 16, 2007, it became clear that "feeling safe" isn't the same as being safe. 26 colleges (or 70 campuses) currently allow concealed carry on campus, including all public universities in Utah, and multiple colleges in Colorado. According to crime statistics and inquiries to campus officials, there hasn’t been a single reported instance of shootouts, accidents, or confrontations resulting from concealed carry on campus. In fact, Colorado State University’s crime rate has declined steadily since allowing concealed carry. While no one can irrefutably claim this is due to concealed carry, it can at least be stated with certainty that allowing concealed carry does not increase risks to a campus population and may even help. I believe that legal weapons should be allowed on campus, they could very well be the ones that help someone make a difference in a hostile situation.

Sources:
Crime Rates on the College Campus. (2006). School Violence Resource Center
http://www.arsafeschools.com/Files/CrimeRateonCollegeCampus.pdf

Summary Campus Crime and Security Statistics - Criminal Offenses. (2005). US Department of Educationhttp://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/crime/criminaloffenses/index.html

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. (2009). Crime on College Campuses in the United States.
http://concealedcampus.org/campus_crime.php

Guns on College Campus: Part I

People tend to be afraid of things they don't know very much about. The proper way to deal with this is not to ban guns, but rather to educate. There is a stigma in regards to firearms on campus that is portrayed as an often fatal stereotype. The media places strong attention on negative aspects of firearm misuse and little attention on proper firearm use, such as for self-defense. A prime example is the tragedy that happened at Virginia Tech, when 32 students and faculty lost their lives.

There are two reasons to allow licensed carry on college campuses. The first is legal entitlement to self-defense. The second is reason is the actual need to use self-defense. Critics of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) often claim that college campuses are usually safer environments, therefore concealed carry and self-defense are unnecessary. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus has never disputed that colleges overall see less crime, because studies do indeed indicate that campuses overall have comparatively lower crime rates. It is logical to conclude that a campus typically populated by students, averaging 18-22 years of age, staff and faculty would be less inclined towards crime, and that if anything else, poor students make poor robbery targets.

It is not logical to compare select zones of a city street to national averages and declare them "safe" and therefore off limits to carry a concealed weapon. Crimes are committed in new locations every day. No one ever expected the quiet college in Blacksburg, Virginia to become the target of a psychopath’s killing spree. During the Virginia Tech massacre, it took law enforcement officials eight minutes to arrive at the campus after the first shot was fired. How many students and faculty were killed or injured in those eight minutes? It is accurate to state that it's possible, if concealed carry on campus was legal, this massacre might not have been so devastating.

Sources:
Crime Rates on the College Campus. (2006). School Violence Resource Centerhttp://www.arsafeschools.com/Files/CrimeRateonCollegeCampus.pdf

Summary Campus Crime and Security Statistics - Criminal Offenses. (2005). US Department of Education
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/crime/criminaloffenses/index.html

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. (2009). Crime on College Campuses in the United States.
http://concealedcampus.org/campus_crime.php

Micro-stamping

In 1969, President Lyndon B. Johnson's National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence recommended "a system of giving each gun a number and the development of some device to imprint this number on each bullet fired from the gun." In modern day, this concept was termed "micro-stamping." Micro-stamping refers to the forensic technology that enables a firearm to imprint a microscopic code, of identifying letters and numbers, onto each fired shell casing. The code would be unique to each individual firearm. The goal is to alter the firing pin in manufactured handguns, so that every time the firing pin hits the primer cap, a unique, microscopic code is engraved on the cartridge casing.

The process of micro-stamping includes altering all newly manufactured handguns' firing pins, to engrave this code on each casing upon being fired. Prior to the sale of the firearm, the unique code will be entered into a large computer database that will identifying the pistols make, model, and serial number. The idea is that when a shell casing is found at a crime scene, the code will be seen under microscope, run against the computer database, and traced back to the exact firearm it was expended from. It is theorized that upon using this method, law enforcement will be able to catch the criminal.

This method is wonderful in theory, but it has many obvious flaws. If everything works out properly and according to plan, this method would work flawlessly, but as we all know, that rarely happens. For starters, the testing of this technique has failed repeatedly in trials. An obvious flaw to this technique is no shell casing being left behind after a crime is committed. Whether it be a handgun that doesn't eject a shell casing, such as a revolver (which are commonly used to committ crimes), or the criminal not leaving it behind because of the well-publicized micro-stamp located on the cartridge that can trace he/she to the crime. Micro-stampings can be easily removed, or the firing pin can be removed or altered, with nothing more than household tools. Also, this new technique will increase gun thefts and illegal trafficking of handguns, because criminals would be further encouraged to obtain guns illegally knowing that legally obtained pistols would link them to a computer database.

Sources:
NRA-ILA. (2011). Micro-stamping.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=246&issue=100

BATFE, Crime Gun Trace Reports. (2000). National Report, http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/highlights.pdf.

Helmke, P. (2007). It's time to pass micro-stamping in California.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Retrieved from
http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=66

Ballistic Fingerprinting

According to forensic science, ballistic fingerprinting is a method of tracing shell casings back to a certain firearm. When a bullet is fired from a gun, markings are left on the shell casing. Generally, there's two important markings, one being the point where the firing pin hits the primer, and the other being the extraction point or where the shell casing is hooked and ejected. The idea is that every new firearm would be fired and that fired bullet and empty shell casing would be sent into the government to be entered into a national computer analysis database. It is concluded that after a crime has been committed, the pre-sale ballistics data will be matched to that of the crime scene.

New York and Maryland have required ballistic fingerprinting since January of 2000. So far, it has not helped solve a single crime. In 2003, California ballistic experts stated that ballistic fingerprinting is not feasable at this time. A study was done which involved firing more than 2,000 from 790 handguns. The report concluded that the ballistic fingerprinting on the shell casings were so greatly different, pistols firing ammunition from the same manufacturer, failed 38% of the time matching the first bullet to the second. When the ammunition was from two different manufacturers, the test failed 62% of the time.

This is a highly controversial method as many people do not think it will work. Again, in 2008, California ballistic experts stated that we aren't ready for ballistic fingerprinting and there isn't likely to be a success story anytime soon. The idea seems unfathomable to me. Every time a gun is fired, it wears on the barrel, and the wearing of the barrel will create different markings on every single fired round, even if it's from the same manufacturer. The technology is just too unreliable at this time. I don't know if I feel that this technique can even work, but I am optimistic.

Sources:
Milloy, S. (2002). How Reliable Is Ballistic Fingerprinting?
Fox news. Retrieved from
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,66007,00.html

Lee, Philip F. (2003). Ballistic Fingerprinting Brief.
Retrieved from
http://www.mcrkba.org/BallisticFingerprinting.html

Derek Rasey. Personal interview. February 24, 2011.

Castle Doctrine

A Castle Doctrine is also known as Castle Law or Defense of Habitation Law. It's an American law concept that we obtained from English Common Law. As far as states in the U.S. go, there are many different versions of this law. Basically, the doctrine states that one's place of residence, and in certain states, anywhere that someone is legally occupying, such as their car or workplace, is a place where one should be protected from illegal trespassing or violent attack. Some states, under the Castle Doctrine, allow for the use of deadly force against a trespasser to protect his/her "castle." In these states, using deadly force to protect one's home could be considered justifiable homicide under the Doctrine.

However, some states still have a "duty to retreat" version of the Castle Doctrine, which means that the use of deadly force is a last resort. In these states, your obligation is to find a way to avoid conflict and retreat the situation unless you have justifiable means to use deadly force against a prepetrator. In which case, if deadly force is needed, the "burden of proof" lies on the defense to prove that the defendant acted reasonably, and tried to initially avoid conflict and/or retreat the situation. Some jurisdictions allow the use of deadly force when retreat is not possible, or when the option of retreating could cause potential harm to the person under attack.

Thirty-three states have developed Castle Doctrine laws protecting the rights of self-defense, without the "duty to retreat" from any place that a person legally has a right to be. To me, this is absurd. All states should embrace the "stand your ground" law, under the Doctrine, that enables a person to use deadly force against an attacker, without having to think of a way to retreat the situation first. When you are under attack, whether it be out in public or in the privacy or your own home, there isn't much time to think. In my opinion, it's basic instinct to protect yourself and your loved ones that takes over. A person shouldn't have to be worried about spending their life in prison for protecting themselves and loved ones from becoming victims.

Sources:
NRA-ILA. (2010). Firearm Fact Card 2010.
Retrieved from
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83

Reinhart, C. (2007). Castle Doctrine and Self-Defense.
OLR Research Report. Retrieved from
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm

Gunownersresource.com. (2011). GOROLE.
Retrieved from
http://gunownersresource.com/gorole/index.php?title=Castle_Doctrine

Firearm Statistics & the Pessimistic Media

Now the facts. Guns are used 2.5 million times a year by law-abiding citizens, for self-defense, or about 6,850 times per day. What this means is that in a given year, guns are used 80 times more often to protect the lives of innocent citizens, rather than to take them. States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7%, and robbery by 3%. Legislations that disarm the law-abiding citizens are responsible for giving criminals a safer working environment.

It doesn't often make the news when a law-abiding citizen keeps themself from being victimized by using a gun in self-defense. Of course the accidental shootings make the news; such as when a child obtains their parents gun, or when a person doesn't use proper gun safety protocols and injures themself. Stories of firearm misuse by criminals will surely entertain the media. But generally speaking, we don't hear the stories about guns protecting innocent lives and keeping people from becoming victimized. Stories of self-defense, using a firearm, happen on a regular basis, yet the anit-gun media doesn't want us to hear about them. These are the stories we should also be hearing.

Jacksie King, an 87-year-old grandmother, lived alone in a small house in Illinois. One December night, an intruder entered her home by severing her phone lines, and prying the security bars off of her window. Jacksie was severely beaten and burglarized and the man was never found. Two months after the invasion, she awoke in the middle of the night to the sounds of an intruder. Again, the burglar cut her phone lines and pried the security bars off in her enclosed porch, and invaded her home. This time, she reached for her .38 caliber Colt revolver that her daughter had given her after the invasion two months prior. She fired the gun and dropped the intruder at her doorstep. 49-year-old, career criminal, Larry Tillman had been shot in the chest, which led to his arrest.

Just a few weeks ago, in Pensacola, Florida, 72-year-old, Jack Crawford heard a knock at his door on a Saturday night. He grabbed his handgun prior to answering the door, as a precaution. When he opened the door, he was instantly struck in the head with an aluminum basball bat. Three teenage boys were attempting to force their way into his house. Too bad for them, Jack had his gun in hand. He shot two of the boys. All three of them ran off. He chuckled as he later said, "I could have shot the third one, but I would have had to shoot him in the back as he ran away." Later that night, the two boys who were shot, were arrested at the hospital when they sought medical attention. The third boy was found later that night as well. All three were charged with attempted burglary and aggravated battery.

Sources:
Gun Owners Foundation. (2004). "Gun Control Fact Sheet 2004."
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Burnett, D. (2011). "Who is the armed citizen?"
NRA Publications. America's First Freedom.
http://www.nrapublications.org/a1f/ArmedCitizen1.html

Collette, C. (2011). "Homeowner Jack Crawford shoots teens who attempted home invasion."
http://www.wtsp.com/news/state/story.aspx?storyid=171980&catid=19&6

Gun Control Movement On the Rise

Gun control is a controversial subject: on one hand, I understand the want to rid the world of gun violence, and on the other, I understand that law-abiding citizens want their right to bear arms. Let me start off by saying, I am on the side that wants to rid the world of gun violence, WHILE having the right to bear arms. I am a firm believer that "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

It is no new news that the Democrats in Congress are pushing to alter the second amendment. In the wakes of the attempted assasination of Congresswoman Gabriella Giffords, Democrats have jumped at the opportunity to reopen the gun control movement. Representative Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.,who lost her husband in a fatal shooting in 1993, has renewed her effort to pass a legislation banning high-capacity magazines, or guns holding more than ten rounds. Most common handguns come straight from the factory with a standard magazine capable of holding 14-16 rounds, including those carried by law officials.

What about the massacre at Columbine? What about the fatal shooting at Virginia Tech? Among many others. Democrats have jumped at the opportunity to reopen gun control issues simply because a member of Congress was attacked. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of gun control, but I find it highly bias that dozens of students being gunned down is met by silence from the Democrats.

Sources:
Gun Owners Foundation. (2004). Gun Control Fact Sheet 2004.
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Winkler, A. (2011). Gun Control's Surprising Return.
Yahoo! News. The Daily Beast.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20110130/ts_dailybeast/12136_guncontrolisbackonagendapostarizonashooting

Lochhead, C. Dlouhy, J. Egelko, B. (2011). Arizona trajedy renews attack on high-capacity gun magazines.
San Francisco Chronicle.
http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20110110/articles/110119929?p=2&tc=pg&tc=ar