The homicide figures, involving 26,513 people in 1991, 1,500-2,800 of these are valid homicides by civilians defending themselves, and 300-600 are justifiable killing by the police. This leaves, at worst, 24,713 homicides in criminal hands, and this includes any method of killing, such as bare hands and feet. Even if we were to wrongly attribute all homicides to firearms. This is still only 1.14% of all deaths in the top 12. You are over 29 times more likely to die of heart disease than to be a victim of a homicide.

There are three approaches. First, all proposals for regulation of gun sales or ownership seems as an infringement on the rights, and a sign of the dangers of government incursions on individual freedom. Second, the policies that challenges to reduce the illegal use of guns through the deterrent effects of tougher punishments when guns are used in crimes. Third, like the school shootings in suburban and rural areas, which is attributed to cultural factors that inspire violence and weaken societal controls. Gun violence is related to social and moral problems and favors policies that would decrease the impulse to use guns rather than reduce their supply.

The shooting epidemic that disturbed urban America since 1986 has declined noticeably in the past three years, and has been replaced in the nation's consciousness by the rash of multiple-victim school shootings that have happened in suburban or rural areas. However, gun violence remains a mostly urban event, and policies on gun control will have a far greater impact on urban areas than somewhere else. To determine the true meaning of the Second Amendment, we need to look no further than the writings of those who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the liberal minded men who followed. These men knew the oppressive power of government directly, and the ensuing dangers to individual liberty inbuilt in that power.

They knew that government could only be held in check if the people had a last option, equal in power to the standing armies of the government. They called this, the militia. The militia is made up of all fit men of the United States, who are anticipated to afford their own arms and ammunition, whose duty is to protect the country from enemies, foreign and domestic. In fact, according to United States code, every man between 18 and 45 is already a member of the militia, whether he knows it or not.

Need research paper proposal? we can write a custom paper for you!

When they drafted the principles of the militia, one of the most important duties allocated, is to defend the country from our own government's armies, should the government ever try to establish dictatorial rule against the United States Constitution; the Supreme Law of the United States. They understood that government often runs amok from the hands of the people, and they wanted an insurance policy against this very danger.

This wording of the Second Amendment outlines the militia as being essential to the security of a free state. While the militia is composed of the people of this nation, it was regarded necessary to outline the "God given" or absolute right to arms for the people, so that there would be no confusion in the government, because the Constitution was not written as law for the people of the United States, it was written as law for Congress and the President.

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms therefore, is a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms. Some may disagree that there is nothing absolute about the Constitution, that as a people, we may decide what rights we think are "God given", and change the constitution at any time to reflect the new outlook. As for "God given", or whatever other term you wish to use for this, even the animals of nature will defend themselves fiercely if need be. What is different about the animal called "human" which should bar us from this "right" or "natural process" to self-defense? Is it that the value of human life is of such immeasurable significance that to take it is a crime beyond measure?

If this is the case, why is it that we permit our police to carry deadly weapons? If it is not right for us to defend ourselves, why should the police defend themselves or us either? Why is it not "correct" to kill a criminal in defense of your life, but it is "correct" for you to die when attacked, because you have followed this set of laws, that the criminal ignores? The government would have us all believe that the only people who should be allowed to defend themselves or others, are those who work for the government.

I have a problem with this idea, and I don't know how some people can succeed it, but they do try. I am not so selfless to think that if another man is attacking me with intention to gravely hurt, injure or kill me, that I should not do everything within my power to protect myself. I will defend myself to whatever level he takes it. To put it honestly, my life is worth more than the life of a hooligan trying to kill me, when I have done nothing to earn such aggression.