In contemporary sociey, the masses sparked controversy with regard whether they have ownership of firearms legally. Supporters contend that citizens owning such weapons can reduce to criminal offenses, while critics believe it will put youngsters and elders in in jeopardy. I will analyze the viewpoints of both groups before expressing my advocacy for latter opinion.
On one hand, It is believed by many that the right of carrying firearms should be legalized, as it can decrease the crime rates. In their opinion, if individuals had guns lawfully, it might put offenders off committing a crime since they would be confronted with a lethal counterattack. However, I wholly disapprove of this statement since it doesn’t take disadvantaged groups into account. Take the USA for example, more than 6000 adolescents who are under 17 were killed by the mass shootings happened in schools in 2022.
On the other hand, detractors argue that holding such weapons licitly will deteriorate the problem of violent crime, putting those who can’t use guns in danger. From their perspective, childrens, the elderly, and the diabled are not as sharp as the young, resulting in that they can’t make counterattacks instantly when facing shooting events. From my point of view, I wholly support this argument as it reveals the detrimental impact on allowing private ownership of such weapons, which is often omitted by advocates. For instance, in United States, kids and old citizens accounted for 51.9% of casualties in shooting incidents, which was two times as much as the percentage of people between 18 to 40 in 2023.
In conclusion, some believe that holding shooting weapons to arm themselives is an effective method of lowering the crime rate, whereas I regard this as an unviable way because they ignore the disadvantaged groups. Hence, I firmly advocate gun-control since it is a potent way to deter mass shootings from escalating.