Wherever the President travels, he has by his side a crew of men, ready to lay down their lives to protect him. However, these protectors aren’t human shields; they are guardians, ready to fight back at a moment’s notice. So, what do the defenders of the world’s most important man use to ensure the safety of their charge? Guns. To a criminal ready to take a life, the only deterrent is meeting the fate he or she hopes to inflict on innocent others. So, if we as a nation trust firearms to protect our leader, it seems common sense to depend on them for the protection of our future. It appears almost mundane today to watch the news and see coverage on presidential debates, foreign affairs with Russia or North Korea, and a school shooting
…show more content…
When a law-abiding individual is robbed of his or her right to defend him or herself against an attacker, that person may be a victim to an unnecessary act. A study has shown that 70% of recent mass killings have occurred within educational or commercial environments , areas where firearms are typically banned from use or carry. Such a high proportion should certainly warrant change in these spaces. Opponents to this sort of pro-gun legislation may cite the low number of permit-carrying firearm owners who have actually stopped mass killings; but, if 70% of these killings occur in places where permit-carrying firearm owners cannot bring their weapons, then it makes sense that they would stop a much smaller percentage on a national scale. The armed citizens who would be able to have an effect on stopping violence are simply not afforded the opportunities to act upon their reasoning for the permit’s acquisition: to protect those and those around them. This could likewise be a testament to the deterrent factor to a criminal facing armed opposition. If it is noted that 70% of mass shootings occur in gun-free areas, and said that mass shooters do not pick their targets at random, it seems only 30% of perpetrators are willing to risk being …show more content…
What many fail to realize in opposing this sort of national pro-firearms legislation is that comparable bills have already been examined, passed, and successfully implemented. In over two dozen states, laws are already on the books making it legal for teachers to concealed carry on school grounds . Therefore, due to the positive results seen by this legislation on a smaller scale, it would make sense for the federal government to provide for the implementation of this system of defense on a national level. In 1990, the original Gun Free School Zones Act was passed, making it a federal violation for an individual “knowingly to possess a firearm at a place he knows is a school zone .” The issue with this law however, was not the content. The issue lay in the judicial limits of the federal government. What had previously been a local and state issue suddenly became a federal crime. This overreach was protested through the plaintiff’s victory in the Supreme Court case United States v. Lopez, in which Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion striking down the law. However, this was negated within a half-decade with the passage of the Gun Free School Zones Amendments Act of 1995, sent to Congress by President Bill Clinton . This new law was not much of a new law. In fact, the only major addition was the stipulation that it was illegal
When a law-abiding individual is robbed of his or her right to defend him or herself against an attacker, that person may be a victim to an unnecessary act. A study has shown that 70% of recent mass killings have occurred within educational or commercial environments , areas where firearms are typically banned from use or carry. Such a high proportion should certainly warrant change in these spaces. Opponents to this sort of pro-gun legislation may cite the low number of permit-carrying firearm owners who have actually stopped mass killings; but, if 70% of these killings occur in places where permit-carrying firearm owners cannot bring their weapons, then it makes sense that they would stop a much smaller percentage on a national scale. The armed citizens who would be able to have an effect on stopping violence are simply not afforded the opportunities to act upon their reasoning for the permit’s acquisition: to protect those and those around them. This could likewise be a testament to the deterrent factor to a criminal facing armed opposition. If it is noted that 70% of mass shootings occur in gun-free areas, and said that mass shooters do not pick their targets at random, it seems only 30% of perpetrators are willing to risk being …show more content…
What many fail to realize in opposing this sort of national pro-firearms legislation is that comparable bills have already been examined, passed, and successfully implemented. In over two dozen states, laws are already on the books making it legal for teachers to concealed carry on school grounds . Therefore, due to the positive results seen by this legislation on a smaller scale, it would make sense for the federal government to provide for the implementation of this system of defense on a national level. In 1990, the original Gun Free School Zones Act was passed, making it a federal violation for an individual “knowingly to possess a firearm at a place he knows is a school zone .” The issue with this law however, was not the content. The issue lay in the judicial limits of the federal government. What had previously been a local and state issue suddenly became a federal crime. This overreach was protested through the plaintiff’s victory in the Supreme Court case United States v. Lopez, in which Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion striking down the law. However, this was negated within a half-decade with the passage of the Gun Free School Zones Amendments Act of 1995, sent to Congress by President Bill Clinton . This new law was not much of a new law. In fact, the only major addition was the stipulation that it was illegal