Gun usage in some parts of the United States should be allowed.

My argument will focus on two points - guns' positive effects on crime, and the constitutional right to bear arms as per the second amendment. I. Crime Criminals do fear guns. This can be illustrated with the concept of hot burglary. This is when a criminal strikes when a person is already at home. In Canada and England, where gun control is very strict, almost half of the burglaries were hot. In contrast, 13% in America were hot. What is the reason behind this? Because criminals think they may get shot, they say robbing at night when people are home is the best way to get shot, they would rather case a house. This proves they fear guns.Even think of it as something as simple as apples and oranges. In a closed market of only apples and oranges, if the price of apples increases, the demand for apples decreases, and the demand for oranges increases. Apply this to guns and robberies. If the amount of guns increases, the incentive to rob decreases, and there is less crime. A common misconception is that more guns are used in crime than in defense. However, defensive handgun use is more widespread than crimes committed with guns: "In sum, DGUs are about three to five times as common as criminal uses, even using generous estimates of gun crimes."[4] This is what two seperate studies conclude:John Lott summarized, "If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly."[1] Police studies conclude, "After controlling for an array of factors, including trends before and after the law went into effect, I show that states that enact concealed carry laws are less likely to have a felonious police death and more likely to have lower rates of felonious police deaths after the law is passed. This result is statistically significant in seven of the nine specifications, and the difference between the before and after trends is significant in over half the specifications."[2] This graph shows that more guns mean less crime: [5]Here is a chart detailing concealed carry laws's effects on each crime bracket: [1] And finally, here is a very informative graph on the effect of conceal carry laws on crime: [1]Guns do reduce crime, and thus, should be legal.II. Constitutionality "On its face, the second amendment's language, '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,' suggests an intent to guarantee a right which people can effectively enforce. This was invariably what the Founders described on the numerous occasions in which they indicated what they meant by 'militia' and that is how the identical "right of the people" language which appears in the first and fourth amendments has always been construed. The following points are offered to support the contention that the language of the second amendment must be taken at face value: 1. The Founding Fathers praised the individual ownership of firearms in terms that would seem extravagant even from today's pro-gun organizations, and thus there is no reason for assuming that individuals were excluded from the right to arms the Founders wrote into the Constitution. 2. There is no support for the assumption that the right is only a collective one because all the political philosophers cited by the Founders affirmed that the individual's right to possess arms is his ultimate guarantee against tyranny. 3. By "militia," the Founders meant "all (militarily capable) males ... bearing arms supplied by themselves".4. When what was guaranteed by English common law (and confirmed by the English Bill of Rights of 1689) was unequivocally an individual right to keep and bear arms, there is no cause for assuming that its American successor guarantees only an exclusively "collective right"--something that did not exist in any legal system with which the Founding Fathers were familiar.5. Last, if the Founding Fathers had intended to guarantee an exclusively "collective right," they would not have done so in language which (in light of the English and American legal background) their contemporaries could only--and uniformly did--construe as preserving an individual right. The evidence for the individual right interpretation is so overwhelming that the existence of an argument which (by studiously ignoring that evidence) degrades the second amendment into a meaningless "collective right" is inexplicable. The readily available explanation is that this "collective right" argument has been written under the influence of a violent antipathy to firearms and a profound belief that their eradication will somehow reduce violence. The effect of that belief upon the discussion of second amendment issues has been so great that a brief consideration of the criminological issues is imperatively necessary, even though it is theoretically irrelevant to the legal considerations involved."[6][7][8][9][10]Therefore, the ownership of guns is a constitutional right and thus should be legal. I have provided two proofs as to why guns should be legal - they reduce crime and are protected by the U.S. Constitution. Sources [1]: Lott, John R. Jr., and David B. Mustard. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." The Journal of Legal Studies, (1997).[2]: Mustard, David B. , “The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths” The Journal of Legal Studies, (2001).[3]: Plassmann, Florenz, and T. Nicolaus Tideman. "Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say," The Journal of Law and Economics, (2001).[4]: Kleck, Gary and Maltz Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, (1995).[5]: http://gunsandbullets.wordpress.com...6]: U.S. Const., amend. II. It is often asserted that the Amendment's reference to a "militia" negates the possibility that an individual right was intended. In fact, in 18th Century English usage, the "militia" was the entire able-bodied adult male population-"all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense [and] ... bearing arms supplied by themselves." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939). [7]: R. H. Lee, Letters From The Federal Farmer to The Republican 169 (Philadelphia, 1787) (a militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ...); 3 J. Elliott, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 386 (2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836); Va. Const. (June 12, 1776): "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people ...."; Sprecher, supra note 1, at n.29.[8]: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble,...."; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects,...." U.S. Const. amends. I, IV.[9]: U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939).[10]: http://www.guncite.com...;