Another argument in favor of bearing arms is that this is a right granted by the Second Amendment, which states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So, people should be allowed to keep and bear arms as a measure of self-protection. As a well-organized police force is needed to maintain security, so is the right of citizens to bear arms needed to protect themselves. (Brent, 2000)

Individuals should have the right to bare guns because such a measure permits them to defend themselves and not to become victims of attackers that take advantage of their weakness. Instead of being a measure that sustains violence, allowing citizens to bare arms is a measure that decreases the criminality rate. American citizens have the right of individual freedom and not respecting their rights to protect themselves is a serious brake of their rights granted by the Constitution of the United States.

Another important issue in favor of the right to bear arms is that such a practice is traditional in the American society. Americans traditionally bare arms for self-protection and this measure more likely discourages criminals than encourages violent use of fire arms.

With Americans being unable to protect themselves, they are forced to rely more on the police and this would call for more police officers that would have to deal with a greater number of violence acts reported. Today, many citizens that use their guns to defend themselves do not report the incidents to the police. Many people use guns to defend themselves against a threat and it is not necessary for them to actually fire that gun, so they believe that there is unnecessary to report the case. Not being able to hold a gun, all these citizens would have to count on the police and this would increase the number of assault cases that the police would have to deal with.

Of course, there are several shortcomings to allowing citizens to bare arms. The most...

But it is a well-known fact that criminals have their ways of purchasing guns illegally. So why should law-abiding citizens be refused the right to defend themselves, especially that this category of people does not have the means to buy a gun illegally, while criminals do. The right to bare arms does not apply to all citizens that want to purchase one - people that have criminal records or that have psychological problems are not allowed to purchase a weapon, so at least in theory, owning a gun is only available to citizens that do not represent a problem to society.
It is important not to forget that the American society is based on values of protection of individual rights and baring arms is the right of every law-abiding citizen to ensure his and his family's protection.

Bibliography

Lott, John R., More guns, less crime, in Taking Sides, edited by McKenna, George and Feingold, Stanley, published by McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, Iowa, 2005.

The main point of the article is that access to guns has a role of deterring crime and that allowing citizens to bare arms is absolutely necessary so that citizens can defend themselves.

This source relates to my other sources because it also states that allowing citizens to bare arms is benefic for reducing crime. I would like to find more articles related to the traditional values of holding a gun in the American society.

Brent, Parker, Do individuals have the right to bear arms, April 2000, available at http://www.rense.com/general/abeararms.htm.

The main point of this article is that the ban on gun possession represents a violation on the Second Amendment and that American citizens are granted through the Constitution the right to possess guns and use them for self-protection.

This article represented a well documented source that related to my other sources on the issue of individual rights.