Guns? Yes or No?
Gun, a weapon of terror, a weapon of destruction, a weapon of war can cause mass damage if in the wrong hand. Gun safety and control have been a point of controversy for many years. On one side, gun supporters claim guns can keep them safe and keep the government in check. On the other side, anti-gun supporters claim guns threaten society, and guns kill. I was inspired when I saw news articles about a mother shooting her 4-year-old children while cleaning her gun and a child shooting his brother and mother with a gun. These are just two of many examples of poor gun safety and control. So today, I will be adding my name to the humorously long list of arguers.
I agree that a hundred percent that guns are dangerous. An unaware infant could kill many adults with ease through the help of a firearm. This example is one way of showing the danger of guns, as no weapon a civilian can access can deal so much damage. That being said, if a person with perfect control, logic, and ethics have access to a gun, it is safe. At the end of the day, a gun is a tool in complete control of its wielder. However, there is no perfect person out there because we all have some flaws, and we all lose control from time to time. This results in every person being a potential threat, which results in an amusing outcome. According to present policies, anyone who may pose a potential danger to society is not allowed access to any form of firearms. This policy, paired with everyone being a potential threat, means no one can access firearms.
I believe guns are an excellent way for people to protect themselves from both dangerous personnel and potential government threats. It makes sense that the gun in the hands is better than the police on the phones. People need to actively protect themselves. The issue is, if everyone had a gun, then that complicates a potentially violent encounter. Imagine this, a person is mugging another person on the street both or one of them has a knife. The situation is relatively mild. Whereas if they both or one of them are armed. The situation in the latter case is clearly more complex than the first case by a far fetch. In an ideal world, no one has firearms, so we will not feel the threat to ever own one. If everyone could agree to give up guns at once, perhaps we would not be having this debate. However, we live far from an ideal world. I do not think I will ever see people volunteer to give up guns because people feel threatened without guns. So I do not think I’ll see guns phasing out in my lifetime.
I think we should impose stricter gun safety rules and precautions. Tighter background checks, and if a person displays any sign of danger, they lose their privilege to guns forever. No one is to be given exceptions, and no one is to be given a second chance. We should work together to crack down on illegal firearms and more. We should also stop arguing and start making the communities safer, thus eliminating the need to ever possess firearms. What do you think?