Constitutionality of Firearms
Affirmative Argument Week 1
By Andrew Zuckerman
During the wee hours of Sunday, October 19, 2014 as the University of Maryland was wrapping up its Homecoming festivities at the McDonalds along Baltimore Ave, a stone throw away from the main campus, a fight broke out on the counter. As the altercation escalated into a full on brawl, the security guard at the location faced significant danger and was forcefully put to the ground by the gang of men. Needing to react quickly the security drew his weapon and fired a shot. But it he hit a bystander, the brawl in the McDonalds ended swiftly prior to any further escalation. Though a side debate can be made over the urgency to give this particular security guard a weapon when he missed his intended target, that is not part of the debate at hand. Rather the need for the security guard at a McDonalds to posse, possibly even own, a weapon in response to the environment of where he works to protect himself is vital. He had a gun for the constitutional rights previously mentioned, being necessary to protect the patrons of the McDonalds from harm and provide them a safe atmosphere. In response to the incident the three individuals he clashed with have been charged with disorderly conduct with one of them, Clarence Kirksey-Walcott, also being charged with second-degree assault. Yet at this moment no charges have been filed against the security guard for his actions that night.
This example though may seem foolish to have taken place in a McDonalds compared to the general theme of protection of the public from major enemies, is a clear and present reason for the ownership and possession of firearms by individuals, be it police officers, security guards, or common Americans, to insure, provide, and secure justice, domestic tranquility, defense, general welfare, and liberty for the public of the U.S. from immoral and plainly rotten people of society.
While every debate over firearms in the country brings up the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms as a basis for the necessity of guns more so the U.S. Constitution provides an overall document for needing some type of weapon. The constitution preamble states “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. Important in that highly quoted text is the ability to insure, provide, and secure, all words associated with the need for protection by the people to ensure they live blissfully under the banner of the United States of America.
Even though any astute person can provide numerous reasons for the necessity of gun control laws, these same measures need not infringe upon the Constitutional rights of the people just because a small percentage of bad apples in this country have taken it upon themselves to act villainously with machines designed to provide for the safety and livelihood of the public. The demand for personal gun ownership is such that those same villains need to be stopped if they infringe upon the righteous and moral classes of America.
For the basis of gun ownership played a major role in forming the country where as a well regulated militia of the people for the protection of the country brought about stability and respect within the world powers. Ownership of guns in the U.S. harps back to the first Europeans arriving on the Atlantic Coast and has been a steady part of society ever since. From providing protection on the Western Frontier from outlaws and Native American attacks to the security of city dwellers guns have played an important role in American history. Though it may seem like a rigid example for the common thought of a split country, when the South went to war, many in the Confederacy’s standing army and local states’ militia used their own firearms to defend their home. For this the only reason why the Confederacy was able to stand for how long as it did was for their prior inclusion under the U.S. Constitution and Second Amendment. Thus because for the safety and protection provided by personal gun ownership the American Way and Constitution providing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all has not been trampled or driven out after 237 years of existence and will be steadfast for centuries to come.
The sources used in this blog post have a direct correlation to the second amendment. The second amendment is for the protection of the American people because it gives them the right of defense.
“Preamble.” LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2014. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble>.
The preamble of the constitution is the foundation in which America’s rights stem from. The second amendment is the ‘right to bear arms’.
Snow, Jeremy. “Three Men Charged with Disorderly Conduct after McDonald’s Shooting.” The Diamondback. The Diamonback, 21 Oct. 2014. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. <http://www.diamondbackonline.com/news/article_79463358-58cb-11e4-8ada-001a4bcf6878.html>.
The local example of the accident in McDonald in which a security guard was attacked and accidentally shot a bystander is an example of how guns should continue to be allowed for self defense in public even though accidents can happen.
Civil War Trust. “Small Arms of the Civil War.” Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2014. <http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/warfare-and-logistics/warfare/smallarms.html>.
The right to bear arms has been imprinted in the American culture since the colonization. Without the use of arms in previous decades the way of life would have been impaired and the ability of prosper as a nation and people would have been impeded.
Causation and Correlation
Critique/Refutation Week 1
by: Mona Zaini
The Boston Globe has an article titled “The Gun Toll we’re ignoring: suicide“. The article takes a different approach at advocating for gun control in case murder statistics were not enough. The statistics in this article show that states with more guns have more suicides, however I would disagree that the two correlations are directly causational. The article admits that there is no evidence proving that gun owners are more likely to commit suicide however the trend can be explained. Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming appear to have the highest suicide rates, and yes, more than 50% of the households contain guns, but there is no evidence to prove that suicides result from this.
Instead, the high rate of suicide may stem from a sense of isolation. All three states are under-populated and frankly, depressing because of it. Similarly, the same isolation would encourage households to own a gun, because if there are no other houses within a mile or yours, and the closest police station is fifteen miles away, you’re going to want to protect yourself with a firearm. Hawaii displays a low ownership of guns yet has a high suicide rate, which would only enforce the theory of isolation. In fact, most of the high-suicide states could also be considered isolated states(West Virginia, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, Idaho, etc). States such as New York, New Jersey, and California would generally be considered among the least isolated states and consequentially have very low suicide rates(as well as less of a need for a firearm in the home). As a result of having a gun accessible, people hailing from the isolated high-suicide rate states may be more likely to commit suicide with a gun. In Montana, 66% of suicides used firearms.
It is the sad truth that those who attempt suicide with a firearm are much more likely to succeed than by any other method. It is not to say, however, that there would be significantly less suicide attempts if guns were not abundant in these states, there would perhaps be less successes. Hawaii has one of the highest suicide attempt rates, greatly outnumbering Montana, Alaska, and Wyoming. It’s just that most people in Hawaii aren’t likely to succeed—for every 1 suicide death, there are 27 attempts. The lesson should be to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, not out of the hands of everyone else. The only real conclusion I can gather from this article is that people who live in isolated areas are more likely to own guns to protect themselves from danger and those same people are depressed and suicidal over their isolated situation. Conversely, states with dense populations are more likely to have gun murders than suicides(think inner city). The District of Columbia overwhelming has the highest rate of firearm deaths, a distant second would be Maryland. Both of these states have relatively low gun-suicide rates.
The people who are committing suicide with firearms vary greatly from those who use firearms to commit murder. Suicide is more common in isolated areas while murder is more common in densely populated areas.
Neyfakh, Leon. “The Gun Toll We’re Ignoring: Suicide – The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com. The Boston Globe, 20 Jan. 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2014. <http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/01/20/the-gun-toll-ignoring-suicide/xeWBHDHEvvagfkRlU3CfZJ/story.html>.
Additional sources in favor of the second amendment and how it should continue to be enacted in today’s society.
This NRA video comments on how guns and technology should not not hinder the second amendment.
Do guns increase crime, or is it just a myth?
This video shows the reaction of a veteran and the implementation of regulations on guns.
If you are thinking of suicide, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline 1800-273-8255