Second Amendment Pros And Cons

When given the question choices for the Big Questions Essay assignment, my interest automatically went to ‘would the US be safer if the Second Amendment was repealed?’ because of its prevalence in the media and current issues. Especially coming from a country where owning a personal firearm is illegal and an extremely small amount of people bother to obtain them illegally, this topic grabbed my attention. The second Amendment as stated in the US Constitution is “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.” The Amendment has a few different translations for the first part of the clause, “a well-regulated Militia.” One translation being that …show more content…
In 2011, the rate of homicides with the use of firearms was at 59% in the United States compared to England’s 7%; one major difference between the two countries is that it is illegal to own a personal firearm in England as opposed to the United States (Gibbons, 2014). Although there are other first world countries that allow people to own personal firearms, they have other stipulations in place to help avoid major issues. People looking to purchase a firearm in Germany and are under the age of 25 must pass a psychiatric evaluation before being able to legally own a weapon (Palmer). However, in Italy, Finland, and France, any applicant must pass different background checks, evaluations, and interviews to obtain a weapon (Alpers). Opposed to these countries, England and Japan outlawed personal firearm ownership (Donohue, 2015). Compared to these six developed countries, the United States ranks highest in firearm-related homicides. Behind the US is Italy, Germany, Finland and France with England and Japan falling way behind them all (Gibbons, 2014). With the other aspects of criminal behavior and societal issues acknowledge, one concrete connection between these countries is the increase/decrease of firearm related crime rates due to the impact of legal personal …show more content…
A study was done to ‘model global distribution of mass shootings’ (Lankford, 2016). In the study, a mass shooting was defined as having four or more victims, these victims are not related through gang relations nor are they familial slayings (Lankford, 2016). Nearly one third of the planets known mass shootings happened in the United States and those 90 mass shootings took place between the years 1966-2012 (Lankford, 2016). Comparing these statistics to another country, Australia, find alarming comparisons. In 1996, Australia changed their gun laws to better enforced policies and watched their mass shootings fall completely. From 1979 until 1996, there were 13 mass shootings in the country but after the reform that number dropped to zero (Chapman, Alpers, Agho, 2006). Since 1996, Australia has had no mass shootings, compared to the US which has had multiple since then (Chapman, Alpers, Agho, 2006). These mass shootings effect those involved, the families of those individuals, and the nation. Some of these shootings have even obtained a worldwide response, for example the Pulse nightclub shooting. With a repealed amendment, the amount of mass shootings in America could decrease slightly or even monumentally as Australia’s did with only policy

Show More