I will begin by examining the pro second amendment side of the argument.
The second amendment reads as follows:
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.
There are several different ways that the second amendment can be interpreted, but those on the pro second amendment side focus on the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In particular, the word “shall” is important, as it infers that the government should be unable to interfere with that right.
What does that mean, exactly? It means that anything that falls under the category of “arms” should be available to citizens to be able to possess without government intervention. Arms can be anything from a knife, taser(which, I admit, I recently learned was ruled by the Supreme Court to be covered under the 2nd), to firearms such as shotguns, handguns, or rifles-including so called “assault rifles.”
Currently, there are laws that prohibit citizens from owning high explosives, or weapons such as a rocket launcher. But a flamethrower is protected, oddly enough.
Citizens that have a class three stamp(extensive background checks and an extra tax) are able to posses certain fully automatic weapons, including the mini gun made famous in such movies as Predator and Terminator 2.
Why would any citizen feel the need to possess a firearm? According to interpretations of the second amendment, citizens may own a firearm for self defense, hunting, or collecting purposes. But purists argue that the real reason for the second amendment, is for citizens to be able to form a militia capable of defending the country from invading forces. The purists also strongly believe that the second amendment is to arm the citizens to be able to defend themselves from the very government itself, should tyranny allow the government to trample other rights guaranteed by the constitution, especially the right to life and liberty. That is the truest purpose of the second amendment, so that tyrannical governments cannot limit or remove these rights, as seen during British rule of the American colonies.
But for now, we will look at self defense, which is the protection of one’s self or property from a threat. Every citizen deserves the right to protect themselves from another person attempting to cause harm. This right applies to both their person, and their home, which is often called “one’s castle” hence the numerous “castle doctrines” in their various forms, which grants a citizen the right to defend their self from harm and their home, using deadly force if necessary. Some states limit this right, stating that the armed citizen should try to retreat if possible, while other states due to require any such retreat.
There are numerous examples of citizens defending themselves from such threats. In 2012, for example, there were 259 cases in which citizens used lethal force in what were determined to be “justifiable homicides.”
There are credible studies that estimate that citizens use firearms to stop violence approximately 100,000 per year. That is a high number to substantiate that citizens bearing firearms prevent crimes, however, other studies have that number much higher, as we will see below.
A 1982 study of imprisoned felons in 11 states, concluded that these felons decided not to attempt a crime 40% of the time if they knew, or believed their intended target to be armed. A 1995 study of only 5,000 households found that in the previous five years, .5 percent of those households had used a firearm in self defense. When applied to today’s standards, that amounts to approximately 62,000 saved lives and over 1,000,000(one million) instances in which crimes were prevented because of the possession of firearms.
Another study in 2000, found that approximately 990,000 instances where firearms were used to prevent crimes, or used as protection and defense against a threat. In this same study, they determined that in 480,000 instances, firearms were used to scare off suspects in home invasions.
According to an fbi study, 94% of the mass shootings in 2018 were ended when an armed citizen stopped the shooter. Also of note, in 2018, 98% of these shootings occurred in “gun free zones.”
Ok, I am done throwing statistics at you, and I am not even going to wade into the case law that I have studied, but I will detail a few specific instances in which a citizen with a firearm stopped a crime in progress.
On February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman, ...nah, just kidding.
In December of 2012, a mall shooter in Oregon was engaged by citizen Nick Meli, causing the shooter to take their own life rather than be wounded, and subsequently taken into custody.
In Moore, Oklahoma, a man armed with a machete attacked a woman in a food plant, decapitating her. He then began to go after others when he was shot dead by an armed citizen with a gun.
In 2007, in Colorado Springs, an armed gunman entered a church and began to open fire. He was shot and wounded by an armed citizen, the suspect then took his own life.
Also in 2007, in Salt Lake City, an armed gunman began to shoot patrons inside a restaurant, killing five before being shot by an armed citizen. The suspect fled the scene, only to be finished off by police.
In Chicago 2015, an armed Uber driver took out an armed gunman who had open fired upon a crowd.
Also in 2015, in Philadelphia, an armed suspect shot and killed a person at a barber shop after an argument. The suspect then turned the firearm on other patrons, wounding one before he was shot and killed by an armed citizen.
In 2008 in a town with a fucked up name, Nevada, a gunman killed two in a bar and turned towards a crowd of 300 people before he was shot and killed by an armed citizen.
And finally, in 2015 in Garland Texas, two armed gunmen open fired on a crowd of hundreds at a Mohammed cartoon event that was held in response to the slaughter at a Paris newspaper that dared to print such cartoons. What these gunmen did not realize, was that this was Texas, so multiple citizens filled these two subjects with holes, stopping their rampage.
Ok, do you get the point? Law abiding citizens armed with firearms prevent crimes, stop intruders in their own home, and have stopped mass shootings.
Now, we will look at the anti-second amendment argument.
