More handpicked essays just for you.
Gun control self defense argument essay
Gun control self defense argument essay
Gun control self defense argument essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gun control self defense argument essay
Deadly force, in my opinion, is being abused, in our present culture, by both citizens and police. Law abiding citizens, by right, are permitted to defend themselves when they believe they are in danger. But to what degree has this been allowed? The duty to retreat has almost disappeared, and a license to kill has replaced it. When police and citizens are shooting people in the back as they flee, all elements of the self-defense argument are invalid. The Castle Doctrine is being abused as well. The justification for shooting an individual has become miniscule in comparison to the value of a human life. Without retreat, no provocation, and insufficient reasonable belief of an imminent deadly attack, citizens are taking it upon themselves to
use deadly force during an incident that could have been defended without excessive force. I believe the police on too many occasions, are using deadly force on the slightest and quickest presumption of danger, without the necessary risk of death. The job of a police officer has imminent danger, which requires a higher degree of constraint and impulsive judgements when using a gun. As a police officer, danger is to be expected, not the opposite, danger felt by a citizen when approached by a police officer. They are trained to deescalate the situation, not shoot when the suspect is fleeing in the opposite direction. As a citizen, if another is approaching, with or without a weapon, and you or another in your situation, fear for your life, after trying to retreat, it would then be acceptable to use deadly force. If all has been done to deescalate a situation, deadly force may be the only alternative
One of the most disturbing trends in American policing in recent years has been the militarization of police weaponry and tactics. In his new book, “The Rise of the Warrior Cop”, author Radley Balko traces the roots of American law enforcement from the constables of colonial times to present day SWAT teams and special response units. With the high controversy surrounding the “war on drugs” and the “war on terrorism,” policymakers have signed off on a dangerously aggressive style of policing that too often leads to unnecessary deaths and injuries. Some people say that modern law enforcement is on a collision course with our Bill of Rights and is unconstitutional. In the book “ Rise of the Warrior Cop” the author talks about how modern day policing are adapting mostly all military tactic. These wars are more than just metaphors designed to rally public support and secure all the money they can to support these programs. They change the way we think about what the police do. Wars mean shooting first and asking questions later. Wars require military tactics and weaponry. Wars mean civilian casualties. Are we at war with our own people?
Individuals’ right to keep and bear arms in self-defense should be further restricted. For example, George Zimmermann – neighborhood watch citizen responsible for the teenager Treyvon Martin’s death
With the articles and past research that I have collected, studies tell us that less than 3 percent of police-citizen contacts involve the threat of physical force by the police. The percentages are higher when the level of force is below lethal force, for instance 20 percent of arrests may involve some type of special or needed force to obtain and control the suspect in able to put him in custody. In the academy, police officers are taught to use equal or greater force to subdue the suspect and do what is necessary to protect the public and also look out for officer safety. Most incidents of force are low level applications such as using the arms, hands, legs, or their bodies to gain control of the suspect. Every police officer is supposed to be trained to a certain standard, and should be able to use the correct amount of force for the situation at hand. Police officers have situational training in the academy on what level of force to use if necessary. All police officers are equipped to handle most if not all situations or levels of force that is need to
Since the inception of the Brady Act, over 118 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were subject to background checks. About 2.1 million applications, or 1.8%, were denied.
Over the years, our nation has witnessed countless cases of police brutality. It has developed into a controversial topic between communities. For instance, deindustrialization is the removal or reduction of manufacturing capability or activity can lead to more crimes when people are laid off. Police officers are faced with many threatening situations day-to-day gripping them to make split second decisions; either to expect the worst or hope for the best. The police are given the authority to take any citizen away for their action that can ruin their lives. With that kind of power comes great responsibility, which is one main concern with the amount of discretion officers have is when to use lethal force. The use of excessive force might or
Police brutality is becoming more and more apparent in the news today because it seems to be occurring more than before. In 2012, the NYPD killed 21 people that year which was an increase by 7 from the previous year (W.A.T.E.R, 1). The numbers are rising in the big cities where more crimes are likely to happen. Toronto isn’t as big as New York City, but it comes to show that police officers are killing more individuals each year. In 2009, in the little city of Cabbagetown near Toronto, two Toronto officers severely beat a man who was allegedly drunk in public. The two police officers were later found guilty of assault causing bodily harm, which shocked much of the public because rarely do police officers get charged after incidents like this. This case ended up bringing up the ethical issue of whether police officers use excessive force on people because they are law enforcements. Police officers seem to usually get away with the actions they do, which sometimes result in death, because they are law enforcements and they’re just looking out for their own safety and of others. I believe that police officers do sometimes use excessive force on people and that they get away with the consequences because they have a free pass because of their job title. To defend this judgment, the arguments that I will use are the statements of both police officers, the test results that proved that the police officers attacked a man who didn’t deserve it, and the decision of the SIU.
There are quite a few cases involving police brutality going on today. The reason it is such a hot issue is due to the violence against minorities, but especially the African Americans. Police brutality is defined as “the unnecessary force by police officer against citizens, resulting in injury” (Peak, 1947, p. 162). That is the most worldwide view of police brutality because a lot of individuals are either injured or killed while the police are trying to apprehend them. The way this issue can be addressed if we look at, is it excessive force or acceptable force and what can be done to prevent people dying by the hands of the police.
The Castle Doctrine allows you to defend yourself or your family from criminals but, where does that stop and the line between killing someone and claiming self-defense begin. There is no boundary that is clearly defined by law, so those people that are taking advantage of the Castle Doctrine often get away with it. I think that people being able to protect themselves is a good idea because the cops don’t always make it on time or at all but I think that there should be much more limits on this law and that it should be federally mandated and the law should be the same nationwide. I think that the people who have claimed the Castle Doctrine should be investigated thoroughly and if it comes out that they were the aggressor then I don’t think they should be allowed to claim it. The Castle Doctrine really does need to be revised and made so that there are no loopholes and the fact that it is different from state to state just helps people get away with killing somebody else. I don’t think that any law that is made with the intention of letting people get off free with murdering somebody else should exist without the time and attention paid to it that taking somebody else’s life deserves.
Over the years, this country has witnessed many cases of police brutality. It has become a controversial topic among communities that have seen police brutality take place in front of their homes. Officers are faced with many threatening situations everyday forcing them to make split second decisions and to expect the worst and hope for the best. Police officers are given the power to take any citizens rights away and even their lives. With that kind of power comes responsibility, that’s one major concern with the amount of discretion officers have is when to use force or when to use lethal force. The use of excessive force may or not be a large predicament but should be viewed by both the police and the community.
The use of physical deadly force occurs when an officers intentionally uses a firearm or other instrument resulting in a high probability of death. The use of deadly physical force should only be used if there is imminent danger to officers or the lives others 257. Importance- In law enforcement an induvial may be faced with the choice of having to use physical force or physical deadly force. That induvial has to use his/her personal judgment, which could lead to life changing
“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 right of all Americans to bear arms is a right the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Gun control laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under consideration. Even if that issue is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms, the idea of restricting gun ownership in order to reduce firearm-related violence would ultimately fail given the previous experiments of gun control in England and in numerous states.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This quote from Benjamin Franklin illustrates how an emphasis on safety can drastically reduce the freedoms enjoyed by citizens of the United States, especially the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states that “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” However, with active shooter situations such as Columbine; the Tucson, Arizona shootings, which nearly killed former Representative Gabrielle Giffords; and recent situations at Newtown, Connecticut; Los Angeles International Airport; and Westfield Garden State Plaza mall in New Jersey, the federal government has questioned this right guaranteed to us as U.S. Citizens. In Congress, it is a back-and-forth battle between the Republicans, who favor less gun control legislation and a literal translation of the Second Amendment, and the Democrats who would like to see more gun control legislation to protect the safety of citizens. However, more gun control legislation would punish law-abiding citizens, be a direct violation of the Second Amendment, and expand the power of the federal government into areas where the Founding Fathers never wanted it.
As a result, “Nearly all agree that when an officer is facing a deadly threat, the proper response is to use deadly force”(Lind). Yes there are many people out there that can be a deadly threat to police officers because the way they are acting but, there are many innocent people that do not affect anyone and still have to be a part of the problem for no given reason. Although a police officer’s proper response is to use deadly force upon someone, there should be other alternatives or ways they can use before going into deadly force and possibly cause someone to lose their live. I certainly do understand that there are certain situations where a cop is coming across someone that is pointing a gun or knife at them and approaching towards them. So therefore them using deadly force would possibly be the right thing to do if they have too, but before using deadly force they should at least try deploying tasers or using bean bag guns to attempt in taking them
The second amendment to the US Constitution shows that it is unconstitutional to have complete and total gun control. The second amendment states that “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 means that it is the right of an American citizen, abiding by the constitution, has the right to bear arms. Currently, there are over three hundred and seven billion people residing as American citizens. Within the homes of these Americans, forty five percent have a registered gun in their household. As a diverse nation, there are many reasons why there are guns located within a household. Sixty percent stated the gun is used for protection against int...
According to the National Police Academy, in the past year, there have been over 7,000 reports of police misconduct; fatalities have been linked to more than 400 of these cases (Gul). Police brutality is often triggered by disrespect towards the police officer. The most noticeable form of brutality is physical, where Chemical gas, batons, tasers, and guns, can be used for physical intimidation or to actually hurt people. Police brutality can also take the form of verbal abuse or psychological intimidation. It seems reasonable to understand that sometimes the police are put into situations where excessive force may be needed. But, because some officers use these extreme actions in situations when it is not, police brutality should be addressed and looked into by both the police and the public. For instance, a police officer who beats a nonviolent protester with a baton would probably be accused of excessive use of force, under the argument that the police officer probably could have dealt with the situation less violently.