Second Amendment: Is it Appropriate Today?

As some of you may know, the second amendment is defined as the right to bear arms. I wish to investigate the correlation between the right to bear arms and the "safety level"� of any given society. This is particularly interesting to me because not all nations in the world allow their citizens to bear arms. Moreover, I currently reside in Hamburg, Germany where there is almost a complete absence of firearms. After solving this problem, I intend to find out which society is safer: one with firearms, or one without. With the knowledge gained from this project I will either be able to casually walk down the street at night basking in my exceedingly high safety levels; or I will constantly shudder in fear, as I try to hide myself in a corner from the dauntingly low safety levels.

In the year 1789, the first draft of the Bill of Rights included the right to bear arms. Looking back into history we can see the numerous reasons that this might be beneficial:

America still had a frontier full of wilder beasts, and potentially unfriendly natives.

America still relied somewhat upon its militia's in order to defend itself.

Many towns throughout America featured a lack of authority.

As we can clearly see today, America is no longer a wild frontier, no longer relies upon citizen based militias, and there is almost no place out of the reach of authority. Since all of these conditions no longer exist the second amendment can either be considered a vestigial element of an outdated document or way of increasing the general safety level by allowing citizens to protect themselves.

In the year 2005, The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime (Dougherty). This could possibly be attributed to the fact that criminals are often deterred by the fact that their potential victim could, in fact be carrying a weapon. The deterrent of immediate physical danger can often have a far greater effect on criminals than potential legal repercussions of an action.

If one wanted to see this theory in action, one must simply look at Australia. Australia recently made it quite difficult (near impossible) for its citizens to obtain weapons. Ironically, the result of this gun ban yielded an increase in the rate of assault by 8.6%, an increase in armed robberies by nearly 45%, and a gun homicide rate of 300% (In the Australian state of Victoria) (Dougherty). This seemingly nonsensical rise in the rate of crime after the right to bear arms had been removed from a society is due to a simply reason; criminal's are still able to obtain firearms! That's right; this means that law abiding shop owners (or citizens) are no longer able to defend themselves against armed assault with a weapon of their own. This significantly reduces the deterrent of immediate physical danger that many law breakers consider before undertaking their dubious deeds.

England (a country where firearms are banned) is another prime example of criminals being able to obtain firearms, whereas law abiding citizens are no longer able to protect themselves accordingly. According to the UK National Statistics Office 10% of violent crimes are committed with a firearm. This number states that criminals are still able to obtain illegal or "black market"� firearms in order to commit crimes with. The rate in which firearms are used in violent crimes in the UK also exceeds the rate in which both sharp (6%) and blunt (4%) objects are used in violent crimes (National Statistics). This tells us that no matter how illegal firearms are, criminals will still be able to easily obtain, and use them while the rest of society has no immediate physical deterrent against this.

Given the added advantage of providing society with a direct deterrent to crime, what are the disadvantages to the legality of firearms? Many people seem to think that there is a synergy between violent crimes and the possession of firearms. That is, they think that criminals will continue to commit crimes, but if firearms are legal then they will commit the crimes with firearms. According to the Statistics Department of the Bureau of Justice in the year 2005 there were nearly 4 million incidents of violent crime reported in America. Of these 4 million incidents only five hundred thousand involved the use of a firearm. Moreover, only 2 out of every 1000 people have been involved in a nonfatal violent crime involving a firearm. (USDOJ). This statistic makes that theory only partially true.

After a long series of statistical explorations, my quest to find out if an armed society is safer or not lead me to interview the inhabitants of two societies, and evaluate their opinions. As I walked down the streets of Germany (a land with very strict gun laws) to meet my first candidate I noticed that the police officers didn't have any guns. I found this fact particularly interesting, and wondered how they continued to do their job of applying authority to society. I later found out that they travel in larger groups and are armed with "billy-clubs"� that they use to apprehend violent criminals (and apparently some of the police officer's have firearms as well). After arriving to the house of my first interview candidate I notice something I was not used to. There was a spiked fence surrounding the house I was to go into, this was unlike anything I had ever seen in America. After ringing a doorbell at the fence, the gate opened, and I was allowed entry. As I approach this "castle"� I noticed that all of the windows have steel sheets that fold over them at night. The house was made of a sturdy brick that looked formidable enough to withstand numerous wrecking balls. As I finally reached the door, I notice that it was made of steel (or similar metal), and had a very complicated locking mechanism. After finally approaching this castle, I was greeted by Ines Blau. Our conversation went as follows (translated to English):

ME: Hello, my name is Jesse Potter. And I would like to know how you would feel if your society was suddenly allowed to own weapons?

INES: I would feel awful! I would always be scared, especially when I went out in the city at nights.

ME: Are you aware that many criminals in your society are still able to obtain weapons? Wouldn't you feel safer knowing that you had a weapon of your own to defend yourself with?

INES: Of course the criminal's are able to get weapons. They don't follow rules. And, I wouldn't feel safer having a weapon because I know I would never be able to use it.

ME: Can you think of any situation where possessing a weapon would be beneficial to society?

INES: Only in areas that have many very poor people in them. This is because they have less to lose, and are therefore more likely to commit crime.

ME: Thank you very much for your time!

As I left the house I looked down the street and noticed that all of the houses looked exactly the same. The only thing to differentiate between the row of houses and a row of castles were the lack of moats surrounding them. I later decided that this was because their society lacked firearms, and therefore burglary happened far more often. To combat this, the Germans had built their homes in order to make unwanted entry physically impossible.

After finding out that the German society was able to put other measures in place in order to replace the functionality (deterrent) of firearms, I decided to contact an American gun-owner and see if they could perform the opposite feat. I then called Deborah Potter, she is a single mother living alone with a 5 year old daughter. She also owns a massage therapy business. Our conversation went like this:

ME: Why do you own a gun?

DEBORAH: I own a gun because more than once I have felt slightly scared while giving a customer a massage. That is because in the course of my business I often end up working alone with strangers that are physically much larger than me. Under conditions like these, I felt the need to be able to protect myself and my daughter.

ME: Sometimes there alternatives to the possession of a firearm, have you investigated other self defense options?

DEBORAH: Yes, I have. But I find them unsuitable to my needs because sometimes they do not work properly. If I am ever forced to protect myself or my daughter I want to be 100% sure that I will be able to do it.

ME: Okay, thank you for your time.

This situation showed me that sometimes there is an inherit need for self defense that cannot be answered by any less than a firearm. Unlike the German society this situation seemed to have no substitute to the possession of a firearm.

After diving into a sea of statistical numbers concerning firearm possession and crime rates I was able to determine that gun control has at least one significant flaw. Criminals will always be able to obtain guns. This can be seen in Australia, as crimes committed with a firearm skyrocketed, just years after firearms were banned. This can also be seen in the UK, where the violent criminal's weapon of choice is also the firearm (as opposed to a knife or club). After becoming nearly certain that lack of gun control led to a safer society, I decided to buttress my existing evidence with interviews from each side of the board. After conducting my first interview with a citizen from a country where weapons are not allowed I learned that there are alternatives to firearms in the realm of crime prevention (higher security houses, larger numbers of police, etc). After conducting my second interview I learned that in some situation's it is very beneficial to own a firearm, and there are no alternatives. The interviews told me that people will often use emotion, rather than facts in order to prove their point in this delicate matter.

After combining the statistics I collected with the first hand information obtained from the interviews I was able to conclude that society is often safer with firearms due to a significant flaw in gun control laws (the fact that criminals have no problem obtaining weapons, no matter what the laws say). Furthermore, through my interviews, I was also able to conclude that gun control laws are only a very small part of determining the "safety level"� of a society, and that the "safety level"� of a society depends greatly upon the individual being questioned. There is therefore not as much of a correlation between the two statistics as I had previously hoped to find. Sadly, I will neither be able to triumphantly parade down the street celebrating my safety, nor will I be able to hide in a corner from the fear that society's lack of safety has instilled upon me.

Works Cited:

"Crime Statistics." 17 Nov.2006.
National Statistics (UK) 21 Nov. 2006
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/sta_index.htm>.

"Key Crime and Justice Facts at a Glance." 18 Sept. 2006.
US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 21 Nov. 2006
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime>.

Dougherty, Jon "Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime." 2 March 2001.
WorldNetDaily. 21 Nov. 2006 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/
article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902>.

Blau, Ines. Personal Interview. 29 Nov. 2006.

Potter, Deborah. E-mail Interview. 29 Nov. 2006