It is observed that the number of shootings in certain countries is directly proportional to the number of privately owned guns. Therefore, it is argued that owning guns should be restricted. As far as I am concerned, I believe that gun restriction will reduce the number of shootings and is necessary.
Some may say that privately owned guns act as a weapon for owners to protect themselves in dangerous and unavoidable conditions. However, when everyone does not have guns privately the level of safety within the area will be enhanced and situations which citizens may need gun for self defence will be extremely rare. When citizens are relatively safe, why will they need guns?
Apart from the necessaries of owning private guns, the security of citizens outweighs the goods of allowing private ownership of guns. It is ideal that owners would use their guns wisely without causing trouble. However, when gun owners who are human and may go through emotional upheavals, they may lose the ability to control their emotions and make wise decisions. As a result, bullets will be shot to the innocent, causing social chaos. For examples, headlines about criminals shooting in supermarkets and schools with guns causing death and injured are not uncommon in the USA. Therefore, gun restriction is required to safeguard the safety of citizens in certain countries.
To summarise, the level of safety is believed to be improved when the gun restriction is imposed. Furthermore, there is no doubt that the personal safety of citizens is of paramount importance. Therefore, owning guns should definitely be restricted. I believe that the total of shootings will be reduced and so as the victims.
It
is observed
that the number of
shootings
in certain countries is
directly
proportional to the number of
privately
owned
guns
.
Therefore
, it
is argued
that owning
guns
should
be restricted
. As far as I
am concerned
, I believe that
gun
restriction will
reduce
the number of
shootings
and is necessary.
Some
may say that
privately
owned
guns
act as a weapon for owners to protect themselves in
dangerous
and unavoidable conditions.
However
, when everyone does not have
guns
privately
the level of
safety
within the area will
be enhanced
and situations which
citizens
may need
gun
for
self defence
will be
extremely
rare. When
citizens
are
relatively
safe, why will they need guns?
Apart from the necessaries of owning private
guns
, the security of
citizens
outweighs the
goods
of allowing private ownership of
guns
. It is ideal that owners would
use
their
guns
wisely
without causing trouble.
However
, when
gun
owners who are human and may go through emotional upheavals, they may lose the ability to control their emotions and
make
wise decisions.
As a result
, bullets will
be shot
to the innocent, causing social chaos. For examples, headlines about criminals
shooting
in supermarkets and schools with
guns
causing death and injured are not uncommon in the USA.
Therefore
,
gun
restriction
is required
to safeguard the
safety
of
citizens
in certain countries.
To
summarise
, the level of
safety
is believed
to be
improved
when the
gun
restriction
is imposed
.
Furthermore
, there is no doubt that the personal
safety
of
citizens
is of paramount importance.
Therefore
, owning
guns
should definitely
be restricted
. I believe that the total of
shootings
will be
reduced
and
so
as the victims.