Proposal Statement

With the terror attacks taking in place in what is seemingly safe places, such as
symphony and coffee shops, I propose that we uphold the second amendment of the
United States constitution and better train and educate gun owners.

The Issue
Recent violence, both domestic and abroad, has caused the discussion of gun rights
and control to be in the main media. There are two schools of thought to gun control,
ban all guns and ammunition, and arm everyone or allow those that want to arm
themselves to do so. In 2012 there were over three million applications for firearms
were filed in Missouri alone. The average person is not safe as they go about their daily
routine. In the following pages facts will show you that gun violence has long been in
society. Facts presented will help to clarify that phrase that is sometimes heard, Guns
dont kill people, people kill people. The research has shown that more times than not,
the acts of a shooter is due to a mental health issue that have gone untreated. Instead
of blaming an inanimate object, the gun, why dont we spend time fixing mental health
issues.

Overview
Merriam-Webster defines a firearm as, a weapon from which a shot is discharged by
gunpowder- usually used of small arms In the general society view firearm is seen as a
handgun, usually a revolver or semi-automatic. Mass killings have been a part of society
in the United States and abroad. Mass killings were predating the ratification of the
second amendment. The second amendment was ratified in 1791. It stated that it was
a right of the American people to bear arms in order to preserve their safety and to
protect themselves from a government that would desire to infringe on their rights. This
amendment is, 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.

Survey

A recent survey asked 28 people a wide range of questions pertaining to their thoughts
on how secure they were and how they felt about guns. The results were being
analyzed in pain staking detail, and the results were staggering when compared to the
rhetoric that is in the mainstream media.
The survey was a web based survey and people were asked to provide accurate and
unbiased opinion. Twenty females or 71% of respondents and eight males or 29% of
respondents participated in this brief survey. 71% of those surveyed were between the
ages of 25 and 44 years old. 62% said they feel as though their work place is not taking
their safety seriously enough. 52% would carry a gun at their place of employment if
they were allowed too. When asked if people who own guns should carry, as in conceal
and carry, 57% said they agreed. Of the 28 people that answered the survey, 68% said
they feel safe knowing there is a gun around. When the question of Open Carry,
carrying a holstered firearm in plain sight of anyone and everyone similar to a law
enforcement agent would do, 64% of the people replied that they would prefer this. This
is a direct correlation with those that feel safe knowing there is a gun around.

Strategic Plan and Implementation

Laws
Based on the data from the survey as well as the numerous case studies and studies
done on the topic of gun control, the laws need to change. Strict guns laws do not
decrease crime. (Annear, 2013)The second amendment was ratified in 1791. It stated
that it was a right of the American people to bear arms in order to preserve their safety
and to protect themselves from a government that would desire to infringe on their
rights; that means any rights given by the United States Constitution. Since ratification
of the second amendment has been interpreted several ways. In 2008 in District of
Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a federal law is invalid. The dissenters
stated that handguns should be banned in high-crime urban areas. (Cornell University
Law School, 2013) This is a form of discrimination and is a grossly erroneous
stereotype of urban areas. Most crime stats are based on crimes over the total
population. This means that smaller populated urban area has a couple crimes, they
would not be allowed to protect themselves. Everyone in that area would be stripped of
their rights because of the actions of a few.
The laws need to be reviewed and consistent in both federal and state levels. The
typical, law abiding, American citizen should have the protected legal right to own a
firearm to protect himself from the criminal and deadbeats with an evil intent to do harm
to those that are innocent and following the law.

Training
People that are trained properly would be able to assess a situation and determine
when the use of a firearm would be appropriate. I propose that before some buys their
first firearm, they have a minimum of twenty-four hours of classroom training. This
training would include how a firearm works. Everyone should know the basics of a
firearm. This is because, when you carry or own a firearm and need to use it, you need
to know what it will do. I also propose having a minimum of twenty hours at a gun range.
Eighteen hours of firing your weapon and getting use to how it feels to pull the trigger.
Six of these house would be in a simulator. The simulator would be to train you and
show you how you react in very stressful situations.

Education
With proper education of two key areas of stressful situations, the misuse of a firearm
would dramatically decline. Education would include basic training on how to read body
language and how to deescalate a situation. Body language is a key factor in knowing
how a person will react to the situation. Deescalating a situation without using lethal
force and how to stay calm in a situation would possibly prevent the use of a firearm in a
situation that may not even warrant the use of deadly force.

The Price
The price can be divided in two schools of thought, monetary and the cost of an
innocent life. Money is what most people associate with a new proposal and plan for
anything. The question is, What is this going to cost me? or What is the outlay of
money for the project? And this is no different. The cost overall would be absorbed by
shooting ranges and gun purveyors. Gun ranges would receive an influx of customers
coming to have the required rang time. This would benefit the local economies and help
out smaller businesses. Also, the firearm purveyors would be into this as their
merchandises would be properly used. Also, those that purchase their merchandise
would be very knowledgeable on the limitations of what their new firearm would be able
to do.
The cost of not making the proposal is greater than all the money in the world. This cost
is the life of the young and innocent childrens blood that is shed because people do not
know how to properly store a weapon. Improper storage allows children to have access
to the weapon. They see television shows a games where people ruthlessly kill without
thinking twice. Main stream media has made ok and almost the norm to use a firearm to
take care of people that they do not like. And with that mindset, would it not be
wonderful to live where people were cognizant of the dangers of a firearm. Would it not
be wonderful to live where people were not dying because of a child finding a weapon
and shooting themselves or others.

What price are your inactions going to cost? Do you want to be the person to not do
something to protect the life of an innocent family from accidently getting killed because
they were not allowed to protect themselves?

Case Studies
Prohibition
Banning a product has been proven to not be a great way to keep people from partaking
in said product. Prohibition of alcohol lasted from 1920 1933 (Thornton, 1991). This
was a complete ban on all alcohol sale and consumption. It was against federal law to
produce, sell, or consume alcohol. This worked at first, and millions of gallons of alcohol
were destroyed. However, this was not always like this. Slowly there was more and
more people that were drinking. There was an initial decline in the number of people
drinking; however, the number steadily increased over the years. With prohibition there
was now a black-market of sorts for alcohol (Thornton, 1991). Thus, the law was to not
make, sell, or consume alcohol yet more alcohol was made, sold, and consumed. If
people wanted to do something, whether its against the law or not, people will do what
they want. "Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the
individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against
further encroachments." (Thornton, 1991) Banning guns and ammunition will not
eliminate guns and ammunition, but rather it will create a black-market for the product
and then becomes unregulated.

Decrease Crime
Banning or limiting guns would not decrease crime and may actually raise the crime
rate. The study what was performed by Kats and Mauser looked at the U.S. and
Europe, as some places in Europe have very strict gun laws. The study found, data
shows that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate is significantly higher
than in the U.S in comparison. There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely
available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have
been endlessly repeated, [the latter] is, in fact, false and [the former] is substantially so,
the authors point out, based on their research. This finding alone flies in the face of the
mantra that is portrayed by those trying to limit gun control. Make it more difficult to get
a gun. they say. However, many times, the guns that are used in these heinous and
reprehensible crimes were stolen or not bought through the proper channels. Those
saying that less guns on the streets and in the hands of those that would do harm are
actually has never been farther from the truth as see by this Harvard report. While the
research published by Harvard may show a direct correlation between lower gun-related
incidents and less stringent laws, and Boston, specifically, is experiencing an alleged
gun crisis, overall, stricter rules on firearms in Massachusetts has seemingly led to

fewer deaths, according to the latest data available, putting the state in the second to
last slot for the lowest number of reported fatalities nationwide. But when it comes to
examining nations as a whole, the Harvard study suggests otherwise. If more guns
equal more death and fewer guns equal less death, areas within nations with higher gun
ownership should in general have more murders than those with less gun ownership in
a similar area. But, in fact, the reverse pattern prevails, the authors wrote.

Conclusion
People want to have the right to carry a firearm when they want to and where they want
to. As been shown through the survey people, especially women, feel safe when a gun
is present. The fact that someone has a gun and knows how to use it makes those that
do not carry comfortable and have a safe feeling. The data shows that no matter what
most of the main stream media tries to make us accept, the people want their firearms.
It would not only be a travesty to take away this constitutional right from the people, but
it would be grossly un-American. The thought that some people should be allowed to
have this right and in high crime urban areas they should not have this right is a
disgrace to our country.
As you have been shown in a couple different case studies, prohibition or limiting does
not fix the issue. Since 1950, every public mass shooting (with the exception just 1) in
the U.S. has occurred in a place where civilians are banned from carrying firearms.
(Unknown, n.d.) People that have the intent to do harm, will do harm. There has been
nothing to stop them, nor will there be something to stop them. The most we can do is
prevent them from destroying the lives of hundreds in mass killings.

By adopting this proposal to educate and mandate range time, we will be taking steps to
a better society. The facts have been presented. The numbers do not lie. There is only
two question left. To you, what is the cost of a young family being senselessly,
heinously, and brutally gunned down with no chance to defend themselves? What are
you going to do? Be the voice of change and adopt this proposal for the safety and
security of those that have died.

Bibliography
Annear, S. (2013, August 30). Harvard Publication On Gun Laws Resurfaces As Talks
About Firearms Continue. Retrieved from Boston Magazine:
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-studyno-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/
Cornell University Law School. (2013). Second Amendment. Retrieved from Cornell
University Law School: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment#
Thornton, M. (1991, July 17). Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure. Retrieved from CATO
Institure: http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/alcohol-prohibitionwas-failure
Unknown. (n.d.). 11 Facts About Guns. Retrieved from Do Something.org:
https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-guns
Winkler, N. L. (n.d.). THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Retrieved from Common
Interpretation: http://constitutioncenter.org/interactiveconstitution/amendments/amendment-ii