Should the Right to Bear Arms in Public Places Be Abolished?

Patrick Henry famously asked, "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?" In analyzing this quote, there is evidence suggesting that Americans should not have the right to bear arms in public places. This right promotes violent acts due to the widespread availability of weapons. When people have access to weapons, they often become more anxious and more easily persuaded to use them. This accessibility makes weapon use plausible, which increases the crime rate.

The issue of possessing weapons in public areas has been a major dispute in the United States for many decades. The right to bear arms originated from the English Bill of Rights, which was passed by Parliament in 1689, and later advanced into the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The right to openly bear arms in public remains a controversial topic. Many people fail to realize that public access to firearms has a significant impact on violence within the United States. Although some people have strong beliefs in this right, evidence suggests otherwise. They often disregard statistics and other harmful incidents that have resulted from public weapon possession. For example, throughout the 1990s, numerous violent incidents occurred as a direct result of open weapon possession. According to health information sources, violence in America reached its peak in 1993, when there were 15.4 deaths from firearm injury per 100,000 people. This number decreased to 12.1 per 100,000 in 1997. Regardless of these improvements, the right to bear arms in public remains a major contributor to violence in the United States. The right to bear arms in public places should be abolished because of its harmful effects and because it actually causes more harm than it prevents.

In every aspect of its application, guns ultimately do not belong in the hands of civilians. A gun is a weapon consisting of a metal tube with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by explosive force. In colloquial terms, guns are known to be dangerous and must be handled carefully, but in emotionally heightened situations, the significance of danger becomes difficult to control. Humans are social beings who live to interact with one another, and these interactions happen constantly. Like all situations in nature, not all encounters are positive. With increased in-group bias, social class differentiation, and the random chance of negative encounters, undesirable confrontations are frequent in today's society.

The primary cause of confrontation in contemporary society is in-group bias, which refers to the phenomenon where preference for one's own group becomes more important than consideration for outsiders or those viewed as outside the group. This is one of the primary reasons for conflicts in current society. Ideas of race, ethnicity, intelligence, and monetary worth help form groups that later come into conflict with one another. Racism is essentially an expression of in-group bias, in which one racial group prefers its own members over another. In-group bias has caused wars and has been the underlying cause of numerous armed conflicts. World War II, for example, was precipitated when one group, the Germans, attempted to eradicate another group, the Jewish people. In-group bias is no stranger to creating armed violence.

Another prominent factor in today's society is that welfare and job markets are directly proportional to overall wellness. Because of this relationship, the overall wellness of the United States has been lower than in previous decades. Lower wellness levels have been correlated with increased violence. Social class differentiation is a pivotal feature of the current economy. This issue was acknowledged long before Karl Marx published The Communist Manifesto in 1848. Although well recognized, this issue has not led to drastic changes over hundreds of years. When this lack of progress is recognized, people become outraged and riled up, emotions frequently expressed as violence toward the more fortunate. There have been many outbreaks of violence in Jamaica when the poor attack the wealthy based solely on the difference in their living standards. As one sociologist noted, repairing the social structure of a country requires reducing the enormous division between rich and poor. Of course, their weapons of choice are often guns purchased through illegal channels.

The least common cause of violent conflict is the random chance of negative encounters, which refers to "wrong place, wrong time" scenarios. These situations usually occur when two people are both experiencing stress or heightened emotions, leading to a dispute that escalates into public violence. Recent studies show that there has been a 25 percent increase in the presence of guns in basic altercations over the last ten years. Guns have become deeply embedded in America's and other countries' mindsets as safe tools when they actually promote more danger. For this reason, they should be abolished.

On August 1, 1966, a horrific event occurred in Austin, Texas. Charles Whitman, a former U.S. Marine and university student, appeared to be a typical privileged young man. His family was wealthy and prominent, but wealth did not bring him happiness. As an adolescent, he was outgoing and active. He was a gifted student and accomplished pianist. However, despite his external success, he harbored deep internal hatred stemming from his household. His father had a terrible temper and frequently beat his mother. His father also belittled and abused him. Later, this experience prompted Whitman to join the Marines, though he was eventually discharged. He began to experience mild depression. His wife, Kathy, became the primary earner in their household. Charles grew increasingly depressed, embarrassed by his failures as a Marine member, student, and husband. His deteriorating mental state corrupted his judgment. On the morning of August 1, 1966, Charles purchased guns and ammunition from multiple retailers. He then went to a university tower and began his attack.

His first target was an eighteen-year-old pregnant girl named Claire Wilson. The bullet pierced her abdomen, instantly killing her unborn child. She screamed in pain and terror. A man named Thomas Eckman tried to rescue her but also became a victim of Charles's rampage. As police arrived, Charles shot one of them, killing him instantly. Nearby, as high school students walked past, he shot two of them as well. He then turned his attention westward toward Guadalupe Street, one of the busiest streets in the area, lined with many businesses. Initially, when people heard the echoing gunshots, they thought it was part of a college prank. They were mistaken. Newspaper carrier Alex Hernandez was wounded. Seventeen-year-old Karen Griffin became the next victim. Thomas Karr was also shot in the back and later died. Many people were absolutely terrified. Business patrons gathered away from windows. Charles shot everywhere, aiming through rain gutters on each side of the building to avoid being targeted. He had so much weaponry that he switched guns multiple times. He killed numerous people within his first twenty minutes on the observation deck. Police had no clear plan to stop him and had to improvise. As officers moved onto the deck, they opened fire on Charles. His reign of terror ended when he was killed. In total, Charles Whitman killed fourteen people and injured dozens more. His name was broadcast nationwide, with television, radio, and news bulletins discussing his actions. This marked a devastating day in Austin, Texas. Innocent lives were taken due to Whitman's mental illness. This case illustrates why people should not have the right to bear arms in public. Many of Whitman's killings could have been prevented if public gun ownership was abolished.

A similar case occurred on October 30, 1985. Outside a shopping mall parking lot, a person dressed in military fatigues, a knit cap, and black boots was aiming a semiautomatic rifle at people and firing. The first target was a man named Eward Seitz. Fortunately for him, the perpetrator missed. Based on a brown rifle case he had previously seen in a car, he assumed his attacker was a man. He was mistaken. The perpetrator was a woman named Sylvia Seegrist, a middle-aged white woman. As Sylvia continued toward the mall, her first victim was a two-year-old child. She later shot a nine-year-old and a ten-year-old. Once it became clear that the military-clad woman was attempting to harm or kill people, shoppers ducked or ran for cover. A few watched as she aimed and fired repeatedly, narrowly missing several people. People were horrified. Sylvia aimed at shoppers in all directions, especially those who did not get out of her way quickly enough. She did not spare anyone and was engaged in a shooting frenzy. Although the shooting lasted only a short time, it ended abruptly. Sylvia's rampage left two people dead and eight wounded. A 24-year-old graduate student named John Laufer watched the woman walk toward him. When she was about ten yards away and lifted her gun to aim, he assumed she was firing blanks and grabbed her, then turned her over to police. It was later revealed that Seegrist was mentally ill. When officers questioned her about her actions, she mentioned family issues. Many people had previously thought her strange. Earlier that week, she had been trying to get a prescription for tranquilizers. In reality, Sylvia was psychologically disturbed and not capable of possessing a weapon. This case demonstrates another reason why people should not have the right to bear arms in public: not everyone is responsible enough to handle weapons, especially those with mental health problems who may not always be in a sound state of mind.