Powerpoint Presentation

1. 6 pages
2. 4-5 minutes total
3. clear, concise, and to the point
4. 1st page – title page
5. 2nd page – intro and thesis statement 2 or three points
6. 3rd thru 5th page – main points with supporting details
7. 6th page – conclusion
8. most effective is pictures

I have to present a presentation on my research paper and above is the requirements and attached is the research paper.

Runninghead: AMERICA-UNDER THE GUN

1

America -Under The Gun

Leslie White

Jersey College of Nursing

Running head: AMERICA-UNDER THE GUN

2

Abstract

In the recent past, the debate concerning the justification of the U.S. gun control laws have

sparked heated debates among the citizens and criminal justice experts. On one hand, a section of

people argue that the government is justified to control gun ownership in order to bring down the

number of cases involving violent crimes. Other experts, on the other hand, argue that the laws

are not justifiable since they infringe some of the citizen’s rights guaranteed by the Bill of

Rights. Given the weight that this topic carries, this paper attempts to convince the reader that the

government‘s move to regulate gun ownership is ill-formed and unjustifiable. To achieve the

stated purpose, the paper analyses the views presented by experts in the field of criminal justice

opposing such regulations.

Running head: AMERICA-UNDER THE GUN

3

America -Under The Gun

One of the arguments presented by the opponents of the gun control legislation is that

such laws may reintroduce a dictatorship in the U.S. This view is premised by the assertion that

taking guns from the citizens deprives them of their power to control the government. According

to Spitzer (2015), armed citizens are in a better position to resist tyrannies and dictatorship

advanced by irresponsible leaders. In a country in which the citizens are armed, a government

cannot advance a dictatorship since the citizens may take arms to resist such dictatorship. Given

that America is a democratic state, the citizens should have enough power to resist dictatorship.

(ProCon.Org, 2018). In addition to empowering the citizens to counter dictatorship, gun

ownership is a right for every U.S. citizens and cannot be violated by the government or any

authority. The second amendment explicitly guarantees the citizens of their rights to own guns

by barring the government and its agencies from denying the citizens their rights to possess a

gun. The stated second amendment states, ‘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

(ProCon.Org, 2018).’ Given that the amendment is enshrined in the constitution, the government

has no power to enact legislations than contravene this amendment since doing so would amount

into challenging the constitution. The primary purpose of enacting the amendments were to

increase the power of the people over their governments. Before the amendments were

commissioned, America was under the authoritarian rule of the infamous King George, which

the forefathers sought to reject (Simpson, 2007). By enacting laws than contravene any of the

amendments, the government would be reversing the benefits accruing from the democratic

leadership that is present today.

Running head: AMERICA-UNDER THE GUN

4

The other reason why gun control legislations should be scrapped is that they limit the

ability of the citizens to protect their country from possible invasion by foreigners (Simpson,

2007). Generally, every country has an army which is responsible for protecting its borders

against foreign invasions. The military men and women are well trained and armed to counter

any international attacks on the country. In the U.S., the military is made up of several units

which include Air Force, Navy, and the Army among others. The number of the military in each

unit is not sufficient to protect the country from foreign invasion especially in times of war.

Additionally, in times of warfare, it would be important to ensure that every person participates

in the military operations to ensure that the country borders are sealed. As Lott (2013) notes, for

a country to fully protect its boundaries, all its citizens must be empowered to counter attacks

from foreigners. This could be achieved by allowing the citizens to own guns and training them

about their appropriate use. In the recent past, the number of transnational terrorism cases have

increased tremendously with such terrorism acts being accomplished by foreigners. Lott (2013)

observes that such acts would be reduced in part if the citizens were allowed to own guns. This is

informed by the fact that in some instances, the transnational terror attacks are accomplished

through mass shooting of the public by gun-bearing individuals. If the citizens were allowed to

own guns, then perhaps the attackers would be stopped.

Other than contravening the constitution, several scholars observe that gun ownership

control does not achieve its intended purpose of mitigating gun related felonies. According to a

2013 study conducted to explore the relationship between gun control and crime, gun related

homicide did not decrease with increased gun control (Lott, 2013). The study which covered gun

deaths for the period between 1980 and 2009 revealed that states which have strict gun

Running head: AMERICA-UNDER THE GUN

5

ownership legislations recorded increased gun-related deaths compared to those that had lenient

gun control laws. The findings could be explained from the point of view that in states with

lenient laws, more citizens owned guns which could be used for self defense. This prevented gun

bearing criminals from accomplishing their criminal activities for fear of counter attacks. Apart

from the described findings, Kleck (2005) argues that banning gun ownership would lead to the

possession of the arms by the criminals and a decrease in ownership among the law abiding

citizens. This would, in turn, predispose the ‘good’ citizens to criminals which would increase

gun-related homicides. Therefore, in as much as some experts belong to the school of thought

that gun control may lead to reduced gun violence, this thinking is untrue and such crimes can be

controlled by increasing gun ownership among the citizens. The inability of the gun control laws

to achieve their primary purpose of preventing gun violence discredits their importance and they

should, therefore, be scrapped.

The other reason for opposing the gun control legislations is that they have failed in other

countries and they may still fail in the U.S. Goodman & Marizco (2010) observe that countries

with strict gun control laws have the largest illegal gun ownership which make the law

ineffective in reducing the overall number of armed citizens. Additionally, it is observed that

countries with strict gun ownership laws record higher gun-related homicides compared to those

with relaxed legislations. Mexico, for example, has the most stringent gun ownership policies in

the world, yet it records higher murder rates than the U.S. In 2012, Mexico recorded 11,309 gun

murders per 100,000 people compared to the U.S. which recorded 9,146 gun homicides per the

same population over the same period (ProCon.Org, 2018). That notwithstanding, Mexico has

only one legal gun shop and it would, therefore, be expected to have the lowest number of gun

Running head: AMERICA-UNDER THE GUN

6

deaths in the world. To acquire a gun from the store, a customer must show proof of honest

income, have no past criminal records, be fingerprinted and photographed, and prove that the

gun will be used for legal purposes. In contrast, the U.S. has more than 63,000 legal gun shops

spread across the country and customers are subjected to lesser procedures when procuring the

guns (ProCon.Org, 2018). The high number of gun murders in Mexico despite the strict laws

regarding gun ownership is an indicator that restricting gun ownership may not achieve the

intended purpose of eradicating gun murders.

Lastly, strict gun ownership laws infringe the citizens’ rights to privacy, sporting, and

hunting and should, therefore, be scrapped. The first one, privacy rights, is a fundamental

freedom guaranteed by the constitution which bars the government from intruding into the

privacy of its citizens (Jacobs, 2002). The U.S. Supreme Court has been on the frontline in

protecting this right which means that the government has no power to infringe it (Spitzer, 2015).

That notwithstanding, majority of the laws that seek to restrict gun ownership seem to directly

infringe this right. The requirement for background checks, for example, allows the government

and its agencies to wrongfully access the customers’ information which amounts into

infringement of privacy rights. Other than the privacy right, research shows that a large

percentage of guns owned by the U.S. citizens are used for sporting activities as well as hunting.

Enacting strict legislations to regulate gun ownership would amount into infringement of the

sporting and hunting rights (Simpson, 2007). In that regard, the citizens need to be trained on the

appropriate use of guns as opposed to retaking the arms from them. Such training will prevent

accidents during hunting and sporting activities which will align with the government’s objective

of reducing gun related deaths.

Running head: AMERICA-UNDER THE GUN

7

References

Goodman, C., & Marizco, M. (2010). US firearms trafficking to Mexico: New data and insights

illuminate key trends and challenges. ​Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,

Mexico Institute and University of San Diego Trans-Border Institute, Working Paper

Series on US-Mexico Security Cooperation​.

Jacobs, J. B. (2002). ​Can gun control work?​. Oxford University Press.

Kleck, G. (2005). ​Point blank: Guns and violence in America​. Transaction Publishers.

Lott, J. R. (2013). ​More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws​.

University of Chicago Press.

ProCon.Org (2018). The Leading Source for Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues.

Retrieved 9​th​ January 2018 from https://gun-control.procon.org/

Rossi, P. H. (2008). ​Armed and considered dangerous​. Transaction Publishers.

Simpson, J. R. (2007). Bad risk? An overview of laws prohibiting possession of firearms

by individuals with a history of treatment for mental illness. ​Journal of the American

Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online​, ​35​(3), 330-338.

Spitzer, R. J. (2015). ​Politics of gun control​. Routledge.