The Right to Bear Firearms

The article called, “Supreme Court right on target: Personal right to keep firearms is protected,” was published by Austin American Statesman in the Editorial Broad on June 26, 2008. This article says that the Supreme Court ruled that in the District of Columbia, people are allowed to keep arms at their homes. It was approved after a policeman applied to register a handgun to keep at home, but the District of Columbia refused. He sued the District based on the Second Amendment which protects an individual’s right to possess firearms. In this article, it is clear that the author is in favor of this right, and it is shown with phrases like “The U.S. Supreme Court got right in its historic decision Thursday, which said Americans have a right to arm themselves with handguns or rifles in their homes for self-defense. The court also appropriately said that this right is not unlimited.” But, is it appropriate to allow people to have arms at home? In my opinion, the right to bear arms should be exclusively for soldiers or policemen. I strongly disagree with the right to have arms at homes for two reasons: firstly, because it jeopardizes families and other people’s lives if the guns are at reach of children or teenagers, and secondly, it generates the concept in children of an unsafe, violent society.

Having guns at home jeopardizes children’s, relatives’ and other people’s lives. According to the website Family Education, “kids access guns easily because there's at least one gun in 40 percent of American homes. 30 to 40 percent of those guns are left loaded and unlocked. Roughly 80 percent of school shootings have occurred when kids access their parents' or relatives' guns.” This fact shows how dangerous are to have guns at home. Many children and teenagers die accidentally with their parents’ guns, or when they the guns to kill by themselves, relatives, teachers or classmates. For example, in December 9, 2008, CNN published an article named “Pennsylvania teen charged with plotting to kill school enemies.” It said that a teenager went to his school in Pennsylvania and killed his classmates he did not like with three guns that he took from his father. This is a good example that shows clearly how having guns at home jeopardizes people’s lives.

Having arms at home make children feel that they live in an unsafe, violent society. When parents have guns at home, children grow with the idea that the society in which they live is not safe and that they have to use guns to protect themselves. When children are used to see guns since they are little kids, they grow seeing guns are as natural as cell phones or computers, and it can promote violent environment where children or teenagers can solve any problem by the force of guns. The way to prevent those problems is prohibiting civilian to bear guns. In my opinion, the only people who should be allowed to have guns should be soldiers or police officers because their lives are in risk because of their job. For example, a police should have a gun because his job is supposed to protect and defend civilians. Another example is a soldier. A soldier has the same job than police, to protect civilians, but also, they have to fight in conflict or wars, so unfortunately, they have to defend themselves with guns. Furthermore, policemen and soldiers are properly trained to handle guns and violent situations, but parents, children and teenagers not.

In conclusion, I strongly disagree with the opinion of the author about the right to have guns because children can have access to guns, causing accidents, killing themselves and other people. It also creates the idea of an unsafe, violent society.