Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
English 101
CRN 48341
Imagine walking around a town where a majority of the people are wearing
guns on their person, some on their hip and others on their ribs. Picture yourself
sitting down in your favorite eatery and being served by a waiter or waitress
Wild West in many people. A time when a dispute could be settled by a pistol duel
Although these images are from the past, they could also be seen in the not-so-
distant future if the open carry law proponents have their say. Open carry is a
there are some outliers, the issue is generally considered a split down the middle of
the political spectrum. The conservative right are generally seen to be the open
carry advocates whereas the liberal left are the open carry opponents. As a
member of the liberal left, I can positively say that I am a member of the latter
group. Open carry not only sets back our evolution as a society but it also infringes
upon the rights of members of society that choose not to own or carry a firearm.
progress. The enactment of a piece of legislature that allows the ability for gun
owners to carry their loaded weapons in public would wipe away much of the
progress made thus far. Advocates for more restrictive gun control believe that to
maintain this progress, the answer is fewer guns. On the opposite side of the
argument, gun-rights advocates suggest that more guns could be the answer. In an
article for The New Yorker, reporter Jill Lepore (2012) wrote When carrying a
left. This statement describes the breakdown in society that has occurred and will
repercussions.
The most prominent argument that advocates of open carry make is that this
very effective depending upon who you ask. This argument is based loosely upon
the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads 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. This coupled with the
constitution the way it was meant to be interpreted when it was originally signed,
allows an argument to be posed that the founding fathers meant for everyone to be
able to carry weapons. There is also much debate as to which meaning of the word
bear was used by the founding fathers. There is the definition that mean to show
or carry or the other definition that means to hold or possess. The argument
brought forward by these gun advocates is one of semantics. This is simply a clever
ploy to distract people the simple truth, this is a law that will allow private citizens
If you do not believe this will happen, consider the actions of both George
Zimmerman and Curtis Reeves, Jr. In both instances, a person with the ability to
carry a concealed weapon took the law into their own hands. Both situations
happened in Florida, which has a stand your ground law. The stand your ground law
makes it legal for anyone in fear for their life to use deadly force. In the George
Zimmerman case, a man followed a young adult and confronted him. This led to a
other male. The fact that someone can start a confrontation and then end it by
taking the other mans life because he is allowed to carry a firearm is sickening. In
the case of Curtis Reeves, Jr, he is accused of shooting a man for throwing popcorn
at him in a movie theater. The two men had a dispute over texting during the
movie, after which a man took Mr. Reeves popcorn from him and threw it at him.
Mr. Reeves responded by drawing his concealed weapon and shooting the man.
According to CNN, the same bullet went through the hand of the victims wife when
she tried to stop Mr. Reeves from shooting her husband (Castillo, Mclaughlin, Hanna,
2014). Nicole Oulson, the victims wife had not exchanged a single word with Mr.
What makes these events any different than any other gun violence that
happens on a daily basis is the state of Florida said that these men were mentally
sound and capable of carrying that concealed weapon. This is what is most
has been proven that people can hide their psychological issues in order to achieve
and surveillance, how can we clearly say that they are fit to carry a weapon in
public? If a person owns a gun in their home, that only puts themselves and their
family at unnecessary risk; whereas, if they possess these loaded weapons in public
it puts the entire nation at risk (Horwitz, 2012). If society chooses to ignore the
danger and perils that come with allowing guns to be worn in public in order to
protect their supposed God given right to carry their loaded weapon, there is little
that can be said to dissuade them. All that can be done is to educate and rely on
our countrys desire to progress and remain one of the worlds foremost powers to
eventually shift the view of the younger generation. A shift to an outlook that both
secures the safety of the people and promotes compromise, an ideal that was
Bibliography
Castillo, M., McLaughlin, E., Hanna, J. No threats before movie theater shooting,
widow says. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com
Horwitz, J. (2012, April 25). Carry a Firearm Puts the Community at Risk. U.S. News.
Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com
Lepore, J. (2012, April 23). Battleground America. The New Yorker. Retrieved from
http://www.newyorker.com