A license or permit to carry weapons is required in Georgia only if you want to carry weapons at any time. When acquiring or registering weapons, this license is not necessary. To apply for this permission, you will need to visit your county sheriff’s office to begin the licensing process. You will also need to pay the appropriate fee and pass a federal and state check for the presence of a criminal past, during which your story about connections with the underworld, crimes, offenses, drug addiction, alcoholism and mental illness will be examined. Once your county sheriff’s office approves your license application, you will receive a gun permit.
For the first time, a ban on the hidden carrying of weapons was established in the states of Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813 - it was believed that this method of wearing was used by persons associated with crime (while the open carrying of weapons was allowed). By 1859, the states of Indiana, Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama, and Ohio followed suit. By the end of the 19th century, similar laws were passed by Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As a result, by the middle of the 20th century, this ban was introduced in most southern US states, while arms trafficking itself remained legal. Covert carrying of weapons was not officially prohibited on the West and East coasts, but obtaining an appropriate license was fraught with a lot of difficulties.
The situation began to change in 1987, when the hidden carrying of weapons was allowed first in Florida, and then in some states of the North-West of the USA. At the beginning of 2017, a license for the hidden carrying of weapons is freely issued in 29 states of the USA, and in 13 it is not required at all.
As a rule, the US states in matters of concealed carrying weapons can adhere to one of four principles:
- No restrictions (English Unrestricted): a license for the hidden carrying of weapons is not required,
- Mandatory issuance (English Shall-issue): a license is needed, but in fact nominally. The applicant must not justify his desire,
- Possible issue (English May-issue): a license is needed, and it is provided at the discretion of local authorities,
- Prohibited (Eng.No-issue): Covert carrying of weapons in public places is prohibited (for individuals), with rare exceptions.
Obama's policy deprives weapons of law-abiding citizens and leaves it to criminals
"Even if you need a sword once in a lifetime, you should always wear it."
/ Japanese wisdom /
Today in the United States, firearm killings are the second leading cause of death among young people under the age of 19 and the first leading cause for black youth. Every day, 13 children die from firearms. Therefore, reducing the number of crimes committed with the use of this type of weapon is one of the urgent problems of the United States.
PROS AND CONS OF PERSONAL WEAPONS
Liberals believe that in order to solve this problem it is necessary to tighten control measures over the acquisition and possession of weapons up to its complete ban. In substantiating their position, the liberals put forward the following arguments.
1. The more people have weapons, the higher the crime rate. 2. Owning a weapon increases the risk of being killed. 3. Removing a firearm from the hands of criminals prevents serious crimes.
Conservatives believe that weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter criminals from attacks.
Conservatives advocate retaining the right to purchase, own, and carry firearms. They refer to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, guaranteeing this right. Conservatives say the weapon itself doesn’t kill anyone. It becomes a murder weapon in the hands of people. Therefore, penalties for the use of weapons for criminal purposes should be toughened and those who committed the crime should be more strictly controlled.
Years of experience in combating crime in the United States and other countries show that tougher penalties for crimes rarely deter people from committing crimes.
Removing weapons from the hands of criminals is a tempting target and an attractive propaganda slogan. But no one knows how to even approach this goal. For example, the latest law enforcement initiative in some states that decided to pay money for each unit of illegal weapons handed over to the police failed miserably. Firstly, little weapons were ridiculously delivered, and secondly, the weapons surrendered were not usable.
Severe restrictions or even a ban on the possession of weapons do not affect the possibility of illegal access to it. By the way, in this case, checks of those who purchase it are not required.
Past American experience shows that a ban on the sale of goods that are in demand among the population leads to the emergence of a black market for prohibited goods. So it was during the Prohibition, and today with a ban on the sale of drugs. The black arms market is currently booming in the United States. Tighter rules for acquiring weapons will not affect those who buy weapons on the black market. Therefore, it is almost impossible to take away weapons from criminals.
According to liberals, the Second Amendment is a declaration that, moreover, does not apply to the individual. Indeed, the Second Amendment states that "a well-organized militia is necessary for the security of a free state, and the right of the people (the people) to store and carry weapons should not be violated." A people, not an individual. The role of the police is performed by the National Guard today.
HARDER WEAPON PURCHASE RULES - ABOVE CRIME
I will not analyze the role of the Second Amendment in the discussion about the individual's right to own weapons. In my opinion, the Second Amendment is not the main argument in the discussion between liberals and conservatives about methods of fighting crime. In the end, if the possession and carrying of weapons by citizens prevents crime and saves the lives of people, then you can adopt the corresponding law if it is not in the Constitution of the country.
The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives comes down to one question: how does the availability of weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens affect the level of crime. The answer to this question can be obtained by analyzing the experience of the United States and other countries.
Jon Lott's article “Homicide Before and After Gun Bans”, published in December 2013 at the Crime Prevention Research Center, provides evidence of changes in the number of homicides before and after the adoption of stringent rules restricting gun ownership conditions. These data clearly show that everywhere, from Chicago and the District of Columbia in the USA to the island states of Jamaica, Ireland and the United Kingdom, increased restrictions have led to increased crime.
Mark Gius, professor of economics at Quinnipiac University, has conducted extensive research on the impact of anti-gun laws on crime rates. The data were analyzed from 1980 to 2009.
A report on this study was published in the January 2014 issue of Applied Economic Letters
Research shows that in states that have more stringent restrictions on the acquisition of weapons and their covert carrying, crime rates are higher. It was also established that the prohibitions on the possession of assault rifles practically do not affect the crime rate.
Mark Gaius's research findings are consistent with a similar study by John Lott and David Mustard of the University of Chicago (1977).
Washington, DC, is famous for its very strict rules on the acquisition of weapons. The city leads in the number of rejections for applications for the purchase of pistols and rifles. Supporters of stringent arms acquisition cites Washington as an example of the correctness of their policies. But they bypass the silence of how these brutal rules affected the change in crime rates.
After tightening the rules on the purchase of weapons, crime in the city began to grow. Today, the crime rate in Washington is 8 times higher than the national one. Former Columbia County Police Chief Maurice Turner asks: "What did the arms control law do to prevent criminals from getting guns? Absolutely nothing ... So residents should be able to buy guns."
The criminals of Washington do not encounter any difficulties with the illegal acquisition of firearms, as, by the way, and illegal drugs. Washington has the fastest growing crime rate in the country. Since 1991, the number of such crimes has doubled, while in the United States - by 11%.
New Jersey is also a place with very severe restrictions on the sale and possession of firearms. These restrictions did not lead to a decrease in crime rates in the state. The 2014 annual Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence report provides examples of how anyone in New Jersey can acquire weapons on the black market in minutes. This person does not need to fill out a mountain of documents and wait several months for their verification. Many of those who buy weapons on the black market are not even aware of the existence of restrictions in the state.
How the tightened rules for obtaining a license to own weapons work, or rather do not work, is clearly visible in such "illustrious" criminal centers as New York and Chicago.
In New York, about 70 thousand units of firearms are registered. According to police, at least 750 thousand pistols and rifles are in people's hands. Thus, more than 90% of weapons acquired illegally. So why do we need strict rules?
In Chicago, a law was passed on the mandatory registration of firearms. Only those who had it legally registered. The same picture is observed in New Jersey.
Obligatory registration of weapons is an absolutely senseless law. After all, when buying a weapon, the buyer and the weapon he purchases are registered. What are the authors of these laws counting on? The fact that after its adoption, people who illegally own weapons will run to the nearest police station to register it. In my opinion, the authors of such laws are held captive by egregious naivety or limitless stupidity.
Among liberals, one of the most popular ways to combat crime is to declare the territories of schools and public institutions (restaurants, cinemas, etc.) zones free of weapons. In such areas no one has the right to have weapons, let alone use them. And if there is no weapon, then there will be no crime.
This naive idea of liberals only facilitates attempts to commit crimes. By declaring these or those territories zones free of weapons, liberals inform the criminals in plain text about where they can feel safe. In free zones, unarmed people will not be able to provide serious resistance to armed criminals.
The idea of free zones does not receive support among the school leadership of the country. School districts in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and South Dakota have decided to allow teachers to carry weapons on school grounds. These teachers go through a rigorous test, and then a serious weapon training. They gain the right to open fire on the defeat of an armed criminal who has infiltrated school grounds and threatens children and school personnel.
In order to discourage the criminal’s slightest desire to attack the school, advertisements often appear before entering its territory, such as in front of the Argyle ISD school in Texas: “Please keep in mind that the school staff is armed and can use all necessary means to protect our students.”
An effective measure that reduces the level of crime is the permission for the hidden carrying of weapons outside the home to those who have the right to own it.
Today, 35 states allow open or hidden weapons. According to a study conducted by Center for Control and Prevention, by the way, by Obama’s personal order, the highest crime rate is observed in states with the most severe restrictions on carrying weapons. In states that allow the carrying of weapons outside the home, the number of murders and robberies is 31% and 36% less than in states that prohibit this carrying. In no state that allowed the concealed carrying of weapons, the crime rate did not increase, although the liberals scared America that it would happen. In the states of Vermont and Alaska, a gun permit has been valid for several decades. The crime rate in these states is the lowest in the United States. In Florida, which allowed the secret carrying of weapons in 1987, the number of murders by 2012 was reduced by 22%. Over the same time, in the country it increased by 15%.
In Illinois, a law was passed in July 2013 to allow the concealed carrying of weapons. The results were stunning. In the first six months, the number of robberies decreased by 20%, hacking and car theft - by 20% and 26%, respectively. The number of killings fell to the level of the 60s of the last century. By the number of murders, Chicago is still one of the first places in the country. But the city had a real chance to improve the criminal situation. The reduction of crimes in Chicago was achieved while maintaining the same number of police officers and their rules of conduct on the streets.
About a year ago, Detroit filed for bankruptcy. City officials were forced to fire many police officers. The remaining police officers, due to their small numbers, do not stay at the crime scene on call, but only record them if the victim reports this to the police. Many areas of the city were dominated by criminal gangs. In this situation, the Detroit police chief urged residents to carry weapons and use them for self-defense. The number of crimes immediately began to fall.
Obviously, permitting the concealed carrying of weapons has a strong psychological effect. It keeps criminals from committing attacks. Studies commissioned by the US Department of Justice showed that 40% of criminals abandoned their intention to attack at least once, fearing that the potential victim was armed. They, like all normal people, are not going to voluntarily expose themselves to bullets.
Anti-gun laws create a safe and calm “working” atmosphere for criminals and allow attacking law-abiding citizens, being confident that they are defenseless.
Thus, the right of people to self-defense with the use of firearms has a stronger deterrent effect on the offender than the threat of harsh punishments.
This pattern can be seen in other countries.
HOW IN OTHER COUNTRIES?
An August 2013 issue of the Journal of Public Law and Policy of Harvard University published an article by Dan Kates and Gary Mauser, “Does a firearm ban reduce the number of murders and suicides?” The article analyzes the impact of the number of gun owners on the level of homicides in Europe. The numerous data cited refute the assertion of supporters of anti-weapons laws "the more weapons, the more murders." The article shows that the offender is not constrained by strict laws and harsh penalties for the crime, but the possibility of receiving armed resistance from the victim of violence. The authors emphasize that the capabilities of an armed person, even more physically weak compared with the criminal, are significantly increased.
The level of murders per 100 thousand inhabitants in 107 countries of the world where the possession of weapons is prohibited is from 2 to 46 times higher than in the United States. For example, the killing rate in Mexico and Russia is 4 times higher, and in such large Muslim countries as Pakistan and Indonesia are 2 times higher.
In the number of firearms in the hands of people per 100 thousand people in the first place are the United States. They are followed by 1.5-2 times behind Yemen, Switzerland and Finland. In terms of killings, our country is in 27th place, and Switzerland and Finland - in 46 and 63 places, respectively. (UN data. Only the registered number of firearms is taken into account).
In Switzerland and Finland, the majority of the adult population owns weapons legally, and the crime rate in these countries is low. Although in the United States the number of firearms in people's hands is the highest in the world, the country is not in the top ten in terms of crime rates. Thus, the statement of liberals that the more law-abiding citizens possess weapons, the higher the crime rate, is not true.
Israel does not have a law guaranteeing citizens the right to possess and carry weapons. People who have obtained a license to own a weapon can wear it openly or covertly. Абсолютное большинство граждан Израиля обучаются методам использования огнестрельного оружия.
В Израиле уделяют больше внимания не на количество единиц этого оружия на руках людей, а на охрану школ и общественных мест от возможных террористических атак. Все израильские школы имеют вооружённых охранников, задачей которых является помешать любому человеку причинить вред школьникам. За последние 40 лет израильские школы подвергались нападением только два раза, в 1974 г. и 2008 г. В обоих случаях на школы нападали исламские террористы.
In the United States, armed guards are sent to patrol historic sites, offices of politicians, and even presidential libraries. And at the same time, 70% of public schools do not have armed guards, and 57% do not even have security personnel. (National Center for Education Statistics).
The federal and local governments actually left schoolchildren and school personnel face to face with armed criminals and mentally unstable people.
According to federal law, the police are responsible for protecting society as a whole, and not an individual. Therefore, it is impossible to hold police officers accountable for failing to provide assistance to the victim of the crime. Thus, each person must protect himself and his family.
In the fight against crime, preventive measures that limit the capabilities of criminals are of no small importance. For example, a routine check of suspicious people during police patrols of the criminal areas of New York and Kansas City has significantly reduced the crime rate in these cities. But leftists are actively opposing such checks. In their opinion, such checks offend people and violate their personal freedom. Leftists hinder the identification of people who illegally own firearms and go out with them. Let people perish, but the personal freedom of the criminal is inviolable.
Possession of firearms places a high responsibility on their owners. Therefore, one should strictly punish those because of the frivolity or negligence of which the weapon falls into the hands of other people.
Hollywood movies and children's computer games glorify the cult of violence in our country. The smallest attempts to limit the production of such films and children's games the left meets with hostility. And at the same time, an elementary school student is suspended from school if he used words such as “gun” or “gun purchase” in his essay.
In truth, the hypocrisy of the left is unlimited.
All efforts of liberals are aimed at taking weapons from law-abiding citizens and leaving them in the hands of criminals. Such a policy helps criminals kill people. Therefore, their blood in the hands of the liberals, too.
Leftists know that anti-gun laws are directed only against law-abiding citizens. They do not concern criminals.
The authors of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution justified it by the fact that citizens of the country need weapons in case of confrontation with a dictatorial government. In the past, including not far away, all dictatorial regimes first of all prohibited their citizens from owning weapons so that they would not be able to resist tyranny.
Is that why the left, led by Obama, is stubbornly upholding anti-gun laws?
|Leave a comment can only registered users. |
Log in using your account on the site:
|You can log in using your Facebook account.|