1

Charlie Barnett
English 1010
Dr. Sean George
12/08/2015
I Want My Guns
If a stranger walked into your house today and threatened youwouldnt you like to
defend yourself? Or, if you were cornered on the street at night while walking home from work,
would you feel able to defend yourself? There are so many rising incidents of violence and
crime in the United States, and many of the victims feel helpless, defenseless, or vulnerable. It is
necessary for people to be able to defend themselves always. Unfortunately, the means to selfdefense are being made difficult. It is a right of the American people to be able to own a
weapon, but the United States government is trying to prevent gun ownership. The belief is that
by limiting gun ownership and usage there will be less occurrences of crime. I believe that gun
prevention is actually causing more crime and turmoil in the world today. Owning a gun
lawfully can be very beneficial, and is a right stated in the bill of rights. Owning a gun provides
self-defense, defense of property, and defense of state.
Each year many people are assaulted and have no means of self-defense. Many people
live in fear wondering if their house will be broken into, or if they will be assaulted on the
streets. There is a common belief among the U.S. population that less guns means less crime. It
is believed that if the government limits gun usage that there will be less crime overall. In a
newspaper article entitled, More guns means less crime, author David Alan Coia reviews the
work of John Lott, which shows how the use of self defense guns has statistically lowered the
rates of crime. In the article Coia demonstrates how crime decreased when the new concealed

2
handgun laws were passed. In one part he says, Lott demonstrates that not only does the
presence of concealed handgun carriers (just more than 2% of American adults) lower rates of
violent crime, but where gun bans are imposed, violent crime has consistently risen in the
United States and abroad. The information provided shows that crime actually decreases if and
when concealed weapons laws are in place. On December 3, 2015 there was a mass shooting at
a party in California. A couple entered into a room full of people and opened fire. If just one of
the guests had had a concealed weapon, then possibly, 14 victims wouldnt have died that night.
In an article entitled The Epidemiology of Self-Defense Gun Use: Evidence from the National
Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011, by David Hemenway and Sara Solnick, it gives
evidence about the positive use of a SDGU (or self defense gun use). The research shows many
different statistics of assaults in different circumstances. One shows that, In property crimes,
55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5% of SDGU victims lost property,
and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property. For this project 14000
cases were used to demonstrate how many people actually used SDGU. As a result, almost 2/3
of individuals who are assaulted currently have no way to defend themselves. I believe that this
information shows how guns can be used in a beneficial way. Our nation has many laws to
protect ourselves, our property, our state, and our country. The Bill of Rights was put into place
so that each individual citizen could have the right to protect themselves. We can and should
defend ourselves lawfully. However, there are many other reasons why gun bearing should be
legal.
Defense of property is another reason why gun bearing should be legal. Countless stories
have been shared by many people explaining their scary memories of having their property
intruded upon. A few of these stories have reached the public ear through the local news

3
stations. I personally have felt the fear as I have seen images of deceased criminals or home
owners on TV. However, I do not agree that homeowners should be labeled murderers by
defending their property. In a court case in Oregon we learn about an important factor of defense
of property. Though the victim might not see the intruder, or if hes armed, if they feel
threatened they have the right to defend themselves. In the article given from KTVB.com it
says, The shooting happened at a home on Washington street in Vale just before 7:30 a.m.
Sunday. Undersheriff Travis Johnson told KTVB that the suspect, who had a gun, kicked in the
door and was shot by the homeowner after a short scuffle. This is a great example of defense of
property. On many occasions the thought that someone has a concealed weapon may prevent a
crime. In an article entitled, Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?, by Don B.
Kates and Gary Mauser, it shares an interesting piece of information. It says, National Institute
of Justice surveys among prison inmates find that large percentages report that their fear that a
victim might be armed deterred them from confrontation crimes. The felons most frightened
about confronting an armed victim were those from states with the greatest relative number of
privately owned firearms. Conversely, robbery is highest in states that most restrict gun
ownership. Maybe a robber will think twice before entering a home to commit a crime. As in
the example of the homeowner in Oregon. If the homeowner had not had his own gun, there
would be a murder case rather than a self-defense case. He feared for his life, he protected his
property according to the second amendment in the Bill of Rights, and as a result the intruder
was shot. Owning a gun has proven to provide safety for those who use them in defense of
themselves or property.
The third defense stated in the Bill of Rights is defense of state. Self-defense and defense
of property are both important, but defending the state is also a right as well as a responsibility.

4
In the Bill of Rights, it says, 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. Since the beginning
of the foundation of our nation we learn that it has been a right to keep and bear arms. In a
Supreme Court case the issue of handguns was brought to the main body. In the syllabus of this
court it states, The prefatory clause comports with the Courts interpretation of the operative
clause. The militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common
defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to
rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to
keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens militia would be preserved. Could you
imagine if our country was invaded and we didnt have a militia? If citizens werent allowed to
own a gun to defend themselves and we solely relied upon our nations army to defend us?
Millions of people could die simply because they were denied the opportunity to own a firearm.
By owning firearms, we put our whole nation in a safer situation to neighboring threats. This
case by the supreme court set rules in order to carry a handgun, which I believe is the correct
thing to do. It is a form of gun prevention, but it also lowers the risk of illegal gun use and
distribution. Overall, it is our right as citizens to form a militia for the defense of the state, to
own a gun and defend our property, and to carry a gun to defend ourselves. Along with the Bill
of Rights, there is an article entitled, A Three-Factor Scale of Attitudes Toward Guns, by
Branscombe, Weir, and Crosby, in which it explains many of the different views of guns. They
say, Guns are powerful symbols. For some individuals they represent independence, individual
rights, and other traditional American values. Owning a gun is also a representation of
independence.

5
Yet, many people are against firearms entirely. Many would say, Anybody can own a
gun, and therefore any criminal has the ability to get his hands on a weapon. It is true that
anybody could own a gun, but many criminals can get their hands on a weapon by any means
necessary, legal or otherwise. Its almost the same as kids who cheat on tests; many of the
students are able to do it, but how can you stop them from actually cheating? Laws are being put
into place, as in the example of the Supreme Court, that allow guns to be used lawfully. In order
to defend yourself from a criminal you may also need a gun. Although there are many
individuals that should not be allowed to use firearms, many people that buy and use them
lawfully, view it as a benefit. Others may say, Mentally ill people should not be allowed to own
a gun. It is difficult to define Mental Illness, although there may be certain cases of Mental
Illness where gun ownership should be prohibited. Most murderers have had a past history of
substance abuse, mental issues, drug use, and other forms of domestic violence. However - the
fact still remains that the right to bear arms and protect your property stands. Taking away a
firearm from any person, when they have committed no crime with that firearm, is going against
the Bill of Rights.
In conclusion, I believe that owning a gun is a right and a necessity for public and
personal safety. I want to be able to protect myself in case a stranger simply walks into my
home, or if I should need to defend my country. As stated previously, there are several mixed
feelings about this argument. Many people feel like guns are dangerous and should be
prohibited. Many feel that the Bill of Rights should be upheld and that the right to bear arms is
just that a right. The recent buzz about gun prevention has sent citizens flocking to the stores,
buying more guns and ammunition in fear of having their weapons confiscated. Because of the
fear of gun prevention, I believe that more crimes are actually coming to pass. More guns really

6
do mean less crime. I believe that gun prevention is literally causing more crime and turmoil in
the world today. Owning a gun can be very beneficial and is a right stated in the bill of rights.
Owning a gun can provide self-defense, defense of property, and defense of state. As Judge
Jeanine Pirro from the Fox News Channel stated, Its time to stop pussy-footing around and
start fighting for the survival of this country and our way of life. Later she said, Number one,
get a gun. Buy it legally, learn how to shoot it and be primed to use it.

Works cited
Breyer, J. and J. Stevens and the Supreme Court. October term. October 2007. No. 07-290.
Web.
Branscombe, Nyla R., Julie A. Weir, and Paul Crosby. "A Three-Factor Scale of Attitudes Toward
Guns." Aggressive Behavior 17.5 (1991): 261-273. Academic Search Premier. Web. 12
Dec. 2015.
Coia, David Alan. "More Guns Mean Less Crime." Human Events 66.23 (2010): 20. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
Dorstewitz, Michael. Buy a gun, learn how to use it! Pussy-footing is over, its about
surviving. BPR: Bizpac review. 6 December 2015. Web. 8 December 2015.
Hemenway, David and Sara Solnick. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from
the National crime victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine Vol. 79. (Oct
2015): p22-27. Article.
Kates, Don B., and Gary Mauser. "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?"
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 30.2 (2007): 649-694. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
Madison, James. Bill of Rights. Washington D.C.: unknown, 15 December 1791. Print.
Vale homeowner shoots armed intruder. KTVB.com. KTVB.com, 7 December 2015. Web. 8
December 2015.