Some believe policemen should be armed with guns in order to prevent street crimes. However, others think this measure would raise the level of social violence. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Why Guns should be Legal
- Individuals have the right to protect themselves;
- People can use guns in self-defense;
- This deters criminals.
Why Gun Ownership should be illegal
- There is a risk of accidents with guns;
- The number of violent crimes increases when guns are available;
- Criminals may be armed;
- The police then need to use guns;
- Suicide rates have been shown to rise when guns are available;
- Guns create violent societies with high murder rates.
Why the police should Use Guns
- Many criminals use weapons;
- The threat of a gun can deter criminals;
- Police officers can force a criminal to surrender;
- It is easier to arrest someone and avoid physical violence;
- The police may shoot violent criminals in self-defense;
- They can protect the public;
- They can shoot an escaping criminal who poses a serious danger to the public.
Why the police should not Carry Guns
- There is a risk of accidents and mistakes;
- The police might shoot an unarmed criminal or an innocent person;
- Accidents can happen in public places;
- There are several alternatives to guns (e.g., tear gas, sprays, and electric shock weapons);
- Only special police units should use guns.
Arms Trade: Positives
- The export of arms, or weapons, is an extremely controversial issue;
- Governments of rich, industrialized countries sell arms to each other;
- This industry creates jobs and wealth;
- The trade of weapons may improve relationships between governments.
Arms Trade: Negatives
- Weapons may be used in conflicts and wars;
- The supply of arms could be responsible for deaths;
- Governments are promoting war in order to make a profit;
- Rich countries can influence the politics of other nations.
As opposed to the extensive use of weapons in the US, people in the UK, even the police, are not allowed to take guns. Some people argue that it may trigger city dwellers' insecurity, whereas others assert that it can eliminate the whole violence in society. Hereby, I would like to discuss both perspectives in the following paragraphs.
Some people believe that the absence of carrying guns is disadvantageous in many aspects of any nation. It has been a trend that violence is increasing in various parts of the world. More and more criminals these days carry guns and other dangerous weapons, but our police force only have pepper spray and batons for protection (as well as bulletproof vests). This is not enough of a deterrent, not enough in today's society. If the police have the proper equipment, such as carrying a gun, they would hopefully not lose their lives, and the residents will feel safer and better protected.
Others, however, hold the opinion that the police should not be allowed to carry guns. There have been plenty of cases that some robbers or thieves who commit a crime but do not deserve death were shot down by police. Furthermore, some unqualified and irresponsible policemen may hurt some innocent citizens even to death when they are pursuing some culprits. Additionally, guns of police may often be lost and will touch off an even worse situation. And thus, it will reduce the overall violence in our society by not allowing guns to the police.
In conclusion, both opponents and proponents of such a practice have their respective reasons and justifications. However, as a person always expecting a peaceful life, I personally agree with the latter view. If guns and some of the other weapons were totally restricted in the modern world, the serious phenomenon of violence and other relevant behaviors would vanish. Hence, it is my sincere wish that governments of other countries would follow the example of the UK to avoid the whole violence in the world.