Keep-And-Bear Arms
Keep and Bear Arms in Self-Defense According to a database maintained by The Guardian newspaper, 203 out of 1,024 people killed by the U. S. police in 2015 were unarmed and the individual right to keep and bear arms does not help. By definition, the right to keep and bear arms often referred to as the right to bear arms or to have arms, the Constitution’s second amendment, allows one to possess arms for self-defense. This means anyone in America has the right to keep and bear arms. However, society is less safe when everyone has the right to carry guns. The question is who should have the right to bear arms in self-defense? The right of police officers and individuals to keep and bear arms in self-defense should be further restricted.
…show more content…
The young boy was playing with the gun outside a recreation center when Officer Loehmann, afraid for his life, shot the boy while the boy was drawing the pellet gun from his waistband. After fatally shooting the boy in self-defense, the jury decided not to indict Officer Loehmann. As addressed by the New York Times article, “since Tamir’s death, questions have been raised about Officer Loehmann’s qualifications and about the Cleveland police’s standards on the use of force” (Williams and Mitch). The article also indicates that Officer Loehmann resigned from another Ohio police department after he was not able to use self-control during a firearms training. However, the Cleveland police department had failed to review that department’s personnel file before offering Officer Loehmann a job. In fact, Cleveland police department’s negligence in hiring a competent person as a police officer caused the death of a young black teen. Officer Loehmann’s use of his right to keep and bear arms was not reasonable or justified.
Others are not police officers, but also carry a gun for self-defense. Nevertheless, not everyone is responsible while keeping or bearing arms on the act of self-defense. Hence, the right should be further restricted only in favor of competent individuals with no prior police record to have less criminals with the access to guns. As in the case of high school student Treyvon Martin, killed by George Zimmerman, who was a neighborhood watch coordinator
The young boy was playing with the gun outside a recreation center when Officer Loehmann, afraid for his life, shot the boy while the boy was drawing the pellet gun from his waistband. After fatally shooting the boy in self-defense, the jury decided not to indict Officer Loehmann. As addressed by the New York Times article, “since Tamir’s death, questions have been raised about Officer Loehmann’s qualifications and about the Cleveland police’s standards on the use of force” (Williams and Mitch). The article also indicates that Officer Loehmann resigned from another Ohio police department after he was not able to use self-control during a firearms training. However, the Cleveland police department had failed to review that department’s personnel file before offering Officer Loehmann a job. In fact, Cleveland police department’s negligence in hiring a competent person as a police officer caused the death of a young black teen. Officer Loehmann’s use of his right to keep and bear arms was not reasonable or justified.
Others are not police officers, but also carry a gun for self-defense. Nevertheless, not everyone is responsible while keeping or bearing arms on the act of self-defense. Hence, the right should be further restricted only in favor of competent individuals with no prior police record to have less criminals with the access to guns. As in the case of high school student Treyvon Martin, killed by George Zimmerman, who was a neighborhood watch coordinator