Recently there has been controversy in several countries of the world about the legal carrying of guns, there have been a series of terrorist attacks in Europe and United States, which have questioned if really civilians need to carry fireguns on their hands. There are different points of view around this issue, but eventually we will have to ask ourselve a key question: would murderers stop killing without guns? I do not really think so.

(Some Wilson combat 1911)

The right to gun possession is the right of any individual to the possession, use and transport of weapons for defensive purposes, sports, hunting (survival or sport), private escort or otherwise, without prejudice other legal activities that could be done with the guns.

This right is often associated with the United States of America, where, with few limitations by law, is fully recognized, and where there are more guns in private hands than in any other country in the world. In fact its origins are older, and original interpretation is far from the current.

(MR556 and MR762)

Origins of this right

The right to gun ownership born in England in the Middle Ages, when they were seated precedents common law and parliamentary monarchy. Enrique II in 1181 enacted a law requiring every freeman to own guns for the king service. So, the right to possession of weapons was linked to military service.

In 1689 he was recognized the right to own weapons for self-defense (only for Protestants) in which is its modern interpretation. This right was part of the Bill of Rights of the same year, which is included in the current unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom. The right to own weapons, like the rest of the common law, was exported to the United States, Canada, Australia and other territories.

Those ones in favour to control carrying guns are justified in assuming an increased of crime, a widely discussed fact, and often also appeal to the "threats to national security". For example, in the world war age, european states controlled weapons as prevention against communism. And now Islamist terrorism is put forward as a new argument. By tradition, the United States applies a contrary solution and allows citizens to have guns for their own defence. Anyway, many countries reserve the guns control, preventing access to citizens.

(Remington 870, beautiful, is'nt it?)

Controversy

Over the time, the federal government and local authorities (states, counties and municipalities) created various policies on guns control. There are records of weapons and their shop places, standards for buyers (age, mental health, experience in weapons and criminal record) and others restrictions. Many of these laws do not violate the Second Amendment, while the rest is under discussion.

There are controversies subject to self-defense, those who are against carrying weapons keep saying that without them, there would be less crime, fewer thefts, fewer murders because "obviously" the offender would be disarmed. Defenders of this right (including me) think the opposite about this point view, they firmly believe that by restricting access to weapons, an uncontrollable black market will rise so quick, in which criminals or terrorists acquire weapons anyway, but now the civilians who follow the laws would be totally defenceless against an attack of this kind of people. This theory advocates this right is extensively tested in countries where state control on weapons has been more lax, as the former Soviet republics, but in Western European countries this situation has not occurred and is in fact more difficult access an illegal firearm in any state of the European Union than in the United States, which according to supporters of gun control would contradict the argument of the black market.

In my personal opinion, i think every person in the world has the right to self-defend of anyone who wants to damage him. Could be even the state the ones who fire shots against the civilians, but disarmed, how would they defend themselve? maybe throwing stones to them? i don't think so. Recently in Europe, there has been many attacks by terrorists, people need a way to defend themselve and what is a better way than legalize carrying guns by normal people.

I don't think a gun would kill by itself, if someone out there are really a murderer, that someone will kill with or without a gun. I am a regular person, i would not kill anyone for any reason, but, im in favour to have an alternative of self-defence.

PRO-GUNS, CAPITALIST! Follow me @ricardotorres