The issue of balancing security and liberty has been a difficult task to deal with by authorities. The dangers posed by open carry gun laws are serious as compared to the dangers people will be subjected to if they lack machinery for self-defense in the face of adversity. Therefore, there is need to formulate informed legislations regarding the security of the citizens in order to make the state a better place to live. Security of the citizens should be prioritized rather than bowing to pressures from particular segments of the population. Texas has become the 45 th state to pass the legislation that allows its residents to openly carry firearms. This will include allowing college students aged twenty one years and above with clean psychological and criminal records to own guns in school (Dave, 2015). The students will be required to pass a shooting test and a training course. As California, Florida, New York, and Illinois continue to ban the open carrying of firearms, Texas becomes the biggest state to pass the law allowing open carrying of firearms.
Not everyone in Texas is excited about the legislation. Citizens as well as businesses have expressed their disappointment given the security threat posed by open carrying of firearms by people living in Texas. Walmart is among the businesses that have come out to oppose the move by the state to allow open carrying of guns. The state had eight hundred thousand gun owners in 2014 and the number is estimated to double given the passing of the legislation. The legislation has the potential of compromising the security of the people in the state. Social psychologists have argued that open carrying of firearms causes a phenomenon called the ‘Weapons Effect’. As such, weapons can make people to be more aggressive in the face of altercations than when there were no weapons (Grossman & Lee, 2008). A study in 1975 found out that drivers react more aggressively when a weapon is in view. A corresponding study in 2006 also showed that armed drivers tend to be more aggressive in situations of fear. Open carrying of weapons is not a criminal deterrent hence giving criminals more access to dangerous guns. A John Hopkins study in 2013 found out that ten percent of American police were killed in their line of duty by being shot by their own guns. This shows that open carrying of firearms does not deter criminals from attacking citizen. The legislation will make the situation much worse by facilitating easy access to weapons by the same criminals because they are citizen as well. Moreover, open carrying of guns is unsafe because hence making it possible for criminals to snatch them for use in their criminal activities. According to a FBI report in 2011, over 54% of firearm homicide victims knew their attackers while another 24% of the victims were actually murdered by family members. This indicates that putting guns in people’s hands serves to increase the insecurity among the citizens. Therefore, there is no reason enough to allow open carrying of guns in colleges. More accidental deaths as result of poor handling of guns by individuals is also a cause for concern in the state. Open carrying of guns makes it difficult for police to effectively respond to gun related incidents as it is difficult to establish who really carries a gun for the good reason (Ayres et al, 2003). The lack of clarity may lead to killing of innocent citizen carrying guns by the police. There is also a close correlation between the open carry laws and the higher levels of suicide. The higher suicide rates are attributed to easy access to deadly guns which can easily be used by the suicide victims.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The proponents of the open carrying of guns believe that bearing arms is a constitutional right that should be taken advantage by all citizens (Grossman & Lee, 2008). Therefore the constitution entitles every citizen the right to defend oneself in the face of attack or assault. By carrying guns, the citizens will be exercising the freedom of participation in the democratic system by carrying weapons by choice. Moreover, the open carrying of weapons is not only a right but a beneficial adjustment the existing gun laws in Texas. The proponents further argue that open carrying of handguns deter criminal activities because the criminals fear to confront armed individuals. Moreover, the trainings given to the citizens will give them enough skills to challenge criminals. Responsible citizens are believed to handle the guns responsibly in relation to defending themselves as well as other citizens. As such, this is seen to improve the security of the citizens in general. Moreover, it is argued that most adults in the U.S. especially in Texas do not misuse their firearms hence do not pose a security threat. Therefore, allowing college students in Texas to carry guns openly will promote safety of the students by preventing campus shootings. Furthermore carrying a concealed handgun can help significantly to stop public shootings that have affected the security of citizens in the US. As such, concealed handguns help considerably in protecting people who cannot always rely on police for protection depending on their locations. Another reason for proposing the law is that majority of the Texas citizens are in the favor of the legislation (Adam & Erik, 2016). However, given the above arguments from the proponents, the reasons given to support open carrying of guns are deficient of evidence because research has shown that increased access to guns has led to increase of crimes involving loss of lives. The rampant campus shootings are as a result of unrestricted access to dangerous firearms. The increasing number of suicide cases is attributed to the increased access to firearms.
In conclusion, I oppose the move by the state of Texas to pass legislation allowing for open carrying of guns by citizens and college students. This move will significantly make those without handguns unsafe both in the residential areas, cities and colleges. As such, the responsibility of providing armed protection should be left to the professionally qualified police officers. Therefore, the state should facilitate the police department and provide enough infrastructure and technology to help them provide reliable protection to the citizens and college students.
References
Adam, N., Erik, E., (June 9, 2016). 2 nd Amendment Does Not Guarantee Right to Carry Concealed Guns, Court Rules. The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/us/second-amendment-concealed-carry.htm
Dave, Philips. (August 27, 2015). What University of Texas Campus is Saying About Concealed Guns. The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/us/what-university-of-texas.html
Winkler, A. (2011a). Gunfight: The battle over the right to bear arms in America. New York: W. W. Norton.
Ayres, I., & Donohue III, J. J. (2003, August). Shooting down the 'more guns, less crime' hypothesis. Stanford Law Review, 55, 1193‐1312
Grossman, R. S., & Lee, S. A. (2008, April). May issue versus shall issue: Explaining the pattern of concealed‐carry handgun laws, 1960‐2001. Contemporary Economic Policy, 26 (2), 198‐206.
