This paper argues that civilian gun ownership benefits society through crime deterrence and self-defense. The author contends that armed citizens discourage criminal activity because perpetrators target vulnerable victims, and that the psychological confidence of armed individuals reduces confrontation likelihood. Drawing on constitutional history and the Supreme Court's District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the paper frames the Second Amendment as both a right and a civic duty. The author also addresses the moral equivalency between crime victims and those who defend themselves through lethal force, and warns against disarmament based on historical examples of governmental overreach.
It is a fact that armed citizens deter criminals from committing crime. Criminals want easy targets and will choose the physically smaller or less imposing target over larger, stronger individuals because they do not want to be hurt or destroyed during their attack. They will most likely choose the easy prey. The exception to this rule is if they are mentally deranged or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Criminals can sense if their intended prey are armed or unarmed. Because armed citizens project a calm and confident nature, the chance of confrontation is greatly reduced. This natural selection of targets means that an armed citizenry shifts the risk-benefit calculation that criminals perform before committing a crime, making entire communities safer through the presence of armed defenders.
The morality of a dead victim is not of higher moral character than that of a person who stops an assault or other crime with the use of lethal force to protect their person. If a person becomes a victim of crime, dies, or is mentally scarred for life, this does not put them on a moral pedestal above a person who protected themselves from a crime.
A person who protects himself or herself is doing what any sane individual would do when faced with a threat to their safety. Self-defense is a legitimate response grounded in the natural right to preserve one's own life and liberty. There is no moral superiority in victimhood; rather, the act of self-defense—even using lethal force when necessary—is a morally justified exercise of one's right to survive.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear arms. This right was reinforced on June 26, 2008, when the Supreme Court of the United States held in District of Columbia v. Heller that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
When the nation's ancestors forged this land, conceived in liberty, they did so with their blood, their courage, and their rifles. When they resisted attempts to dissolve their free institutions and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of the right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. This demonstrates that this right was deeply valued by those who founded the nation.
"Disarmament historically precedes governmental tyranny"
You’re 74% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.