Legality of Firearm Carrying in Public Places - Research Paper Example

?Legality of Firearm Carrying in Public Places Topic: Should firearms be or not be allowed to be carried unconcealed in public places? Thesis: Peopleshould be allowed to carry firearms in public, but with enough limitations that these would only be possible under certain conditions and restrictions, which not only test their skills in self-control, but also let them recognise the importance of relying less on their weapons and more on the comfort that they have more power in not using them than in firing them at will. Unconcealed Firearms should be allowed Initially, only military personnel were allowed to have firearms, but many countries abolished this idea and allowed law-abiding citizens permissions to carry them. Due to the second amendment in the United States, and the English Bill of Rights in the United Kingdom, law-abiding citizens now have rights to bear arms such as guns, for their own self-defence use, since it is expected of them to use firearms only for such purposes (Gulasekaram 1522; Hitchens). This idea works effectively since there are definitive clauses in defining who can carry guns, as well as to how they should actually use it. In addition, civilian firearm owners comprise only less than 5% of the entire population which mostly reside in much more rural areas which entail the necessity of firearms, such as locations with the presence of hunting grounds for game (Bureau of Justice Statistics 10). With this information, it should not pose any problems with the carrying of firearms since more often than not those with permits to carry them live in sparsely-populated areas, in contrast with more densely-populated areas where firearm owners are mostly either in the military or in the police forces. Also, because of the tight laws surrounding the carrying of guns, it is expected that more and more criminals could actually act brashly since they expect that they will not be facing any form of resistance from anyone at any time, thus carrying guns would not only help deter forms of crime, but also keep both the individual and other people within the vicinity safe (Hitchens). Thus, regardless of how negative gun ownership seems for the public, firearm owners will continue to lobby that carrying their guns is their constitutional right, can actually be good for more people, and thus exercise it in accordance (Rostron 513). Individual citizens were given the rights to defend themselves using firearms, and while there has been an increase in gun ownership in recent years, there has also been a decrease in gun-related violence in the past decades that should quell the public’s fear of uncontrolled gun usage (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2), thus giving citizens much more sound reasons to take their firearms out in public. In addition, the problems tied with gun violence were mostly tied up with loose or unregistered firearms, discrediting the capability of legal firearm owners in handling their weapons in accordance to jurisdictions and applicable laws. Also, most responsible owners will actually carry their guns unconcealed in public, mainly to intimidate and not actually use it, and the fact that they allow people to see their guns mean that while they do mean to intimidate any wrong-doers from doing them harm (Hausman), they also have enough responsibility to not actually shoot just about anyone around them. The idea might sound absurd for some, but this is actually a much more safe approach than concealed guns, which are often overlooked and could actually slip past security measures. By showing the public that they have guns, and allowing people to see their unconcealed firearms without actually using them, these gun owners tell the public that they are responsible enough not to carry out any kind of shooting frenzy since they actually just show that they have weapons without actually meaning to them, as opposed to actually using their guns. Lastly, firearms should be allowed to be carried in public because as far as the legal owners are concerned, they have much more accountability and awareness on how they should protect other people from acquiring harm than politicians or lawmakers. In relation to this, it is surprising to know that more firearm owners have much more awareness of their responsibilities in handling their weapons in comparison to law and policy-makers without any firearm experiences (Showalter). This is because aside from being knowledgeable about their rights under the constitution with regards to carrying firearms, they also have more than enough knowledge on how firearms work, as well as having enough discipline to not treat their guns without proper care, lest they cause harm to others and themselves. Problems or issues of loose firearms do not give justice to how well responsible owners actually put their weapons, and as such it is the misuse of illegal gun owners that cause the negative images surrounding gun ownership, not the unconcealed carrying of guns per se (LaPierre 6). Therefore, in order to make the public much more at ease and aware of the existence of responsible gun ownership, firearm owners must be allowed to take their guns out and carry them unconcealed to show the public that they have enough self-control not to fire at will, as well as recognising their capabilities to be as responsible as they can with regards to keeping the public safe from their weapons. Unconcealed Firearms should not be allowed Guns have been seen negatively by most members of the public due to being tied with acts of violence and crime. Even if there have been estimated decreases with regards to gun-related violence, some figures show that illicit gun trade has increased in impoverished countries as well as acts of violence using these weapons (LaPierre 9). With the globalisation of such information via numerous media types such as the internet, it is easier to feed such negative images to the general public, and allow them to accept these as the truth. Firearms have been extensively portrayed as a cause of death not just by humans, but in other living creatures as well. It is also seen as a weapon of destruction, making these seem anti-life. Gun owners are also mostly shown to lack self-control when in battle, which is very stereotypical and does not represent the civilian owners of guns (Rostron 518). Due to such negative images of guns and gun-owners, most of the public prefer not to see these people since it implies that their surroundings are unsafe, especially for the younger ones. While it is unfair with regards to responsible gun owners as they do expend efforts in ensuring that they carry their weapons safely and not harming those around them unintentionally, their stereotyping may be harder to be removed since it has been deeply ingrained to the public’s mind the kind of people who often used guns (Gulasekaram 1525). Also, because gun owners comprise less than the general public, it would be easier to ban unconcealed carrying than providing public information due to the lesser numbers of people to be notified as opposed to the larger numbers of population that do not carry any weapons on themselves. Thus, it would be easier to just simply pass a law or policy concerning only a few and specific people since it would be easier to track their actions as compared to trying to control information supplied to a wide variety of people. Due to the negative images of guns, gun ownership and the society’s negative perception of such weaponry, there must be a greater control over the exposure of such weapons in public since people have strong tendencies to act out spontaneously and without warning when panicked. Despite legalities in terms of laws and policies surrounding the carrying of arms in public, the public’s lack of information with regards to guns and gun ownership makes them very uncomfortable with seeing ordinary citizens carrying guns in places, whether or not it is brought out in places needed the most (Hausman). This could not only cause discomfort among the sensitive members of society, but it could also potentially cause incoherent information to the younger members, such as children and adolescents, as it might give them the wrong message that guns are used to intimidate people, as opposed to the original reason why the amendments for carrying weapons were actually revised. While gun ownership may not be much of the problem, it is the unconcealed carrying of guns that worry people the most, as the mere sight of any kind of weapon could cause warrantless panic, especially in densely-populated areas where the people are highly-impressionable (Hausman). Lastly, the public perception of gun ownership is not expected to change in only a matter of years, which would keep the public from fully getting comfortable with the idea of guns being shown in public. Mass media has long been showing the effects of uncontrolled gun violence for a very long time, creating a negative image for both guns and gun ownership (Rostron 522). From printed to visual media, extensive photos of gun-related violence have turned gun-ownership into something strongly-tied to crimes. This misconception has even gone to the extent that the mere carrying of guns in public can cause discomfort, panic, or chaos (Hausman). In a way, the mind set of people will not be easily changed, even if in recent decades guns are mostly used for intimidation more than aggression and as a last resort self-defence, as shown by statistics (Bureau of Justice Statistics 12). In addition, the stereotyping of gun owners in relation to gun-related violence have instilled into them that anyone carrying a gun cannot be trusted, and would have not enough self-control when it comes to its use (Rostron 523). While such ideas maybe unfair for those responsible enough to only shoot their weapons during times of self-defence, the mass portrayals and exhibitions of unruly usage of guns will prevent the public from actually communicating and connecting with these gun owners, and such bridges may not be crossed at will as long as gun-related violence exists in other parts of the globe. Thus, the only possible way to put the doubts of the general public with regards to publicly shown firearms by civilians would be for them to carry weapons but only concealed from others’ view, to ease the public’s worries about guns. Conclusions Whether or not guns or any kind of firearm should be carried unconcealed in public remain to be debated, both by gun owners as well as the sceptic members of the public. For the gun owners’ side, it is their right to be allowed to carry their weapons in accordance with the amendments and bill of rights to defend their selves from any kind of harm. But it must also be remembered that is also their responsibility to keep these weapons from harming others. In the assumption that all weapons are carried by registered gun owners, statistics show that there is a lesser chance that these people would actually hurt people since their numbers are very low in comparison with the numbers of non-gun owning civilians. Thus if they take these out in the public, it must not be considered a threat since if they were unfit for it; they should have caused harm for a greater number of people. On the other hand, due to the long-standing negative images of guns and gun ownership due to the globalisation of gun-related violence around the world, it will be very difficult for most of the general public to find acceptability in the idea of guns being carried out in the public. There is also a major stereotyping with regards to gun owners, as they have been portrayed as unruly and uncontrolled wielders of weapons, which cause the public to lose their trust immediately to any person carrying firearms. Also, many people are very sensitive with images of guns, as such people tend to react spontaneously to the presence of people carrying unconcealed weapons, without even thinking if these people did mean any harm or not. If such things were to happen in public places, no matter how responsible the gun owner is by not firing at will, the mere presence of this person would still cause widespread panic for these people, causing greater emotional harm than good. Thus, firearm owners should be allowed to carry firearms in public, but only under certain conditions and restrictions that not only test their skills in self-control, but also let them recognise the importance of relying less on their weapons and more on the comfort that they have more power in not using them than in firing them at will. Works Cited Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Firearm Violence, 1993-2011." Special Report. 2013. Print. Gulasekaram, Pratheepan. ""The People" of the second amendment: citizenship and the right to bear arms." New York University of Law Review (2010): 85, 1521-1581. Print. Hausman, Sandy. Unconcealed Guns Can Unsettle, But They're Often Legal - NPR. 30 January 2013. Web. 4 July 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/2013/01/30/170652470/unconcealed-guns-can-unsettle-but-theyre-often-legal Hitchens, Peter. Why I Demand the Right to Carry a Gun – Mail Online. 23 March 2013. Web. 10 July 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-173487/Why-I-demand-right-carry-gun.html LaPierre, Wayne. The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the UN Plan To Destroy the Bill of Rights. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc., 2006. Print. Rostron, Allen. "Incrementalism, comprehensive rationality, and the future of gun control." Maryland Law Review (2012): 67(3), 511-570. Print. Showalter, Amy. Five Reasons The NRA Won The Recent Gun Control Debate That Have Nothing To Do With Politics - Forbes. 16 May 2013. Web. 04 July 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyshowalter/2013/05/16/five-reasons-the-nra-won-the-recent-gun-control-debate-that-have-nothing-to-do-with-politics/ Read More