In some countries, people are allowed to keep arms, while some people feel that private citizens should not be allowed to keep arms and ammunition as it can threaten the society and pose serious problems for public safety. Discuss and give your opinion.

In some countries, people are allowed to keep arms, while some people feel that private citizens should not be allowed to keep arms and ammunition as it can threaten the society and pose serious problems for public safety. Discuss and give your opinion.

Legalisation of ammunition by private citizens has become a hot topic these days, some stand in favor of this evolution, while others do not acknowledge it.

To begin with, individuals should have the right to protect themselves, their property, and their family, especially in the areas where law enforcement take time to reach or crime rate is high since these activities are quite ubiquitous there; consequently inhabitants of those locales have to suffer, so embracing effective safeguards such as guns is the only option. To corroborate, Canada allows its populace to own guns; a majority are living in the outskirts of the urban areas and it takes a long time for law enforcement to reach on time at the crime scene. Beside this, in recent years due to high crime rate in cities like Toronto, Brampton, and so forth, many urbanites are also carrying weapons.

However, possessing armaments can often lead to chaos in a society, jeopardising  safety of others; it give rise to crime, deaths, suicide, and so forth. Many nations around the world agree that there is a direct correlation between owning a gun and violence. During 1940 in the USA when every state granted permission to legally hold weapons for themselves, it gave rise to the criminal empire, crimes like burglary, killing civilians and police officers was on its pinnacle; forcing the regimes to rollback the reforms and implementing more strict rules to help sustaining law and order in the country.

In hindsight, I think weapons should be only legalized up to an extent: where unlawful elements are usually active, and police unable to serve, in other areas these should be kept out of bounds of the general public.

In some countries, people are allowed to keep arms, while some people feel that private citizens should not be allowed to keep arms and ammunition as it can threaten the society and pose serious problems for public safety. Discuss and give your opinion.

In some countries, people are allowed to keep arms, while some people feel that private citizens should not be allowed to keep arms and ammunition as it can threaten the society and pose serious problems for public safety. Discuss and give your opinion. 

The debate over the right to bear arms is complex and has been vehemently questioned. In contemporary times, people have various perspectives on this matter. In this essay, I shall elucidate my stance on this matter allowing this privilege could prove to be counterproductive, and thus,  must not be afforded to private citizens. 

The proponents of this policy advocate that it is the right of individuals to possess arms and ammunition to safeguard themselves and their family members. Supporters also believe that these devices empower them for self - defense at challenging times:  they can act like a strong deterrent against potential criminal acts and keep the victims safe. Similarly, in countries where safety is a major concern, citizens are advised to be cautious of the situations and hence, feel it essential to own weapons. Nevertheless, these assumptions fall flat when considering the ground reality; this apparatus has resulted in engendering more jeopardies than bringing around a sense of security. Barring a few situations, where license has been given, others need not have ownership of these deadly equipment. 

When one does not have a gun, they are not compelled to use one. Absence of gun control laws contributes to increase in crime rates and also contributes to mass shootings. Having ownership of guns can have detrimental effects as sometimes people lose their sense of calm in pressing situations, and tend to use it without a second thought. Even at the slightest provocation, many make use of it. At times, youngsters also use it due to curiosity, or for addressing their adrenaline rush, menacing their and the safety of others. Moreover, easy access to these hazardous devices promotes violence, increasing crime rate; ultimately, leading to anti-social activities, and fueling social  discord. Many social behaviorists feel that the sheer presence of these makes people feel nervous in their own homes instead of feeling  safe. 

In hindsight, there will be severe ramifications in such a scenario and have negative societal impacts .In order to curb impulsive and potentially dangerous acts, firearms must not be given free access. These only pose a threat to society, but rarely help in extending effective safeguards.  

In some countries, people are allowed to keep arms, while some people feel that private citizens should not be allowed to keep arms and ammunition as it can threaten the society and pose serious problems for public safety. Discuss and give your opinion

In some countries, people are allowed to keep arms, while some people feel that private citizens should not be allowed to keep arms and ammunition as it can threaten the society and pose serious problems for public safety. Discuss and give your opinion 

There is a great public discourse hovering around the sensitive issue of private citizens possessing guns. While some commentators propound that it is the need of the hour, and such equipment can afford appropriate safeguard against undesirable situations, others dissent with this proposal.  

To embark upon discussion, a lobby favors affording(give/extend/allow) permission for keeping guns for the sake of safety as they consider such devices as a permanent solution against unlawful elements like robbers, who not only steal their goods but also ensure deleterious effects on their lives. Moreover, those residing in areas such as city outskirts, suburbs, and those deprived of jurisdictions need to rely on self defense, making it imperative to have a hold on appropriate safeguard. 

Additionally, those dwelling within close vicinity of wild areas must acquire certain devices to deal with wild creatures, and this kind of protective equipment can help them ensure that they remain away from trouble. In a pilot study carried out by Hindustan Times, it was revealed that nearly forty seven percent of those having agricultural land neighboring the forest regions, aided themselves with armament to help shelter their crops  from foraging deer and elephants.  

Nevertheless, as per critics, this kind of arrangement would turn out to be a fiasco, as if children get their hands on these devices, they might misuse these, and jeopardize their lives; hence firearms should not be made a lawful possession. Similarly, those having anger issues might consider using arms as the first resort instead of the last, consequently resulting in exposing others to serious harm.  

In hindsight, I opine that this practice will lead to chaos in the society as many might become vulnerable to the unwarranted outcomes if weapons are used unintentionally or in a fit of rage.

In some countries, people are allowed to keep arms, while some people feel that private citizens should not be allowed to keep arms and ammunition as it can threaten the society and pose serious problems for public safety. Discuss and give your opinion

In some countries, people are allowed to keep arms, while some people feel that private citizens should not be allowed to keep arms and ammunition as it can threaten the society and pose serious problems for public safety. Discuss and give your opinion

In contemporary times, various countries allow their people to use ammunition for their safety and the trend is increasing. The following paragraphs shall discuss the views of those in support of this notion along with, lobbies against this phenomenon.

To start with, a large number of people favor the policy of arms, as  permitting them can be helpful for the individuals who live in the countryside and outskirts, their surroundings are more difficult as these areas are usually infected with robbers and criminals. Furthermore, law enforcement is low in these areas and possession of arms is necessary in a locality surrounded by wildlife and forest, animal attacks are common and situations can become deteriorating for the people around. 

Similarly, individuals engaged in agriculture activities require weapons to safegaurd their crops from invading wild animals: the latter destroy the production. According to a study conducted by ‘Times Now’ it has been found that 80 percent of ruralites, mostly engaged in farming, felt weaponizing themselves gauranteed safety against the menace posed by of attacks of foraying wolves, deer and elephants.

Nevertheless, others pospose imposing laws against the usage of arms by the common population, for it can create  chaos and can make surroundings precarious for everyone, as one might use it as the first option instead of last. Additionally, keeping weapons at home can turn into fiasco: it is easy for childrens to reach out to such  equipment, leading to dire consequences and worsen the situation. Furthermore, the situation can become more difficult for police to take control of weaponry and tracking criminals.

Overall,  while the possession of arms is essential in some cities and remote locales infested wild creatures and criminals, the ease in the policy can make things difficult. Thus, such permission must be awarded discreetly.

In some countries, people are allowed to keep arms, while some people feel that private citizens should not be allowed to keep arms and ammunition as it can threaten the society and pose serious problems for public safety.

In some countries, people are allowed to keep arms, while some people feel that private citizens should not be allowed to keep arms and ammunition as it can threaten the society and pose serious problems for public safety.

 

Ielts Essay - Gun control or No?

Humans have always had a direct or indirect relation with arms and ammunition for a long time. But, in the modern times, many experts have started suggesting that the civilized society do not need these anymore, while some others staunchly resent this and treat the privilege of keeping weapons at par with other fundamental rights.

Possession of arms and ammunition by common citizens can pose a serious threat to public safety, especially in urban areas – where people live on the edge of outbursts due to hectic schedules. People keeping weapons are susceptible to unruly behavior, and quite often they rather tend to point guns at each other even in instances of irrelevant arguments, for example, in case of road rage in urban areas, people resort to threatening each other in which events often takes nasty turn due to use of weapons resulting in serious injuries and sometimes even death.

Moreover, the law enforcement agencies find it really hard to keep a track of these combat gadgets. Their task of managing public safety becomes even more difficult in times of certain public events, like demonstrations, elections, public rallies or events of   public importance; as there is always a risk of anti-social elements creating unrest with help of these instruments.

However, some lobbyists cite several instances, where possession of weapons has helped the residents of an area to bolster their security and ensure their safety. As per this view, law enforcement agencies cannot be present everywhere all the time; and many a times people using these instruments in self-defense have been able to keep criminals and other anti-social elements at bay.

In conclusion, I personally feel that allowing a common citizen possession of weapons is a controversial issue and should be more seriously dealt with, and discreetly allow keeping these devices.