Lethal defence. (A2)

“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”.
These are the words expressed in the US constitution from 1787.
There is no doubt that we all should have the right to protect and defend ourselves and our loved ones, but where is the limit of how and with what we protect and defend ourselves?

In this essay I will account for the positive, negative sides of the increasing use of firearms and the consequences of the increasing use of weapons in private? How much does it really mean for society and the common security that children are now at are now introduced to firearms in an earlier age?
In Denmark, we think that USA has an extreme form of defence in private homes and that is probably because we do not see the same kind of extreme violent crime at home.
In 1999, figures showed how big the problem already was at that time. Many had either been injured, killed or committed suicide by a firearm.
Because of the recent history of terrorism and the rise of crime and newer adopted laws in some states, we can now state that it has become even easier for an American to acquire a weapon. This is to a certain point worrying.
A good initiative came from the organization Youth For Safety as they are trying to get people to wake up and see how bad it actually stands with all these weapons and they simultaneously try to prevent more school shootings. But when one of the major mistakes is completely legal, the so-called gun clubs in American schools, it seems like the Youth For Safety are on a “mission impossible”.
Allan Gotlieb, a former Canadian ambassador for the United States, says that it is a good idea with the gun clubs, it keeps the children away from the street and keeps them in school and it is a legitimate business. Josh Sugarman, the executive director and founder of the Violence Policy Center and the author of two books of gun violence prevention and also against Gun Clubs in schools is concerned that there might be a chance for new ”Columbine shooting” if this continues.
On the other side he NRA is trying to promote the guns to children because of a decreasing profit in the country. It is wrong to place children in this high risk, he says.

When it comes to weapons in Denmark we can not compare ourselves with America. We are a small country where crime is not committed to the same high violent and extreme level as in the United States. It is probably one of the reasons that private people have acquired weapons against intruders on private property for burglary or similar. In Denmark there is also burglary and in recent years we have seen a development of home robberies, but this makes absolutely no right to own and use of a weapon. In some states in the us it is legal to kill in self-defence and at some points you can see the logic and meaning in it, as you never know who or what you are facing if it goes wrong, neither can you know whether the stranger is armed or not. But not everyone is suited to be the owner of a weapon and mostly not mentally suited although it is not stated anywhere. Weapons are so prevalent in the United States now that they are being abused. People sell them to criminals and ultimately the shooting guns end up with gangs, which only worsens the situation. That the weapons are so readily available will also help to increase the risk of new school shootings etc. It is a discussion that can not come to an end, as all the points of views can be turned both ways.
I do not think that in a large country like the United States it should be prohibited to own weapons, because the crime rate and the homicide numbers are so high. It will scare many burglars and robbers if they see a gun or hear a gun shoot.
At least the defence could be answered with pepper spray or an electroshock gun. Not with lethal defence.

Nermin Kurbasevic.