Writing: Dicussion essays. Guns control

Guns and Weapons.

Why guns should be legal:
In some countries, people are allowed to own firearms Individuals have the right to protect themselves
People can use guns in self defence
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 polices should use guns 
Many criminals use weapons
The threat of a gun can deter criminals
Police officers can forces a criminal to surrender
It is easier to arrest someone and avoid physical violence
The police may shoot violent criminals in self defence
They can protect the public
They can shoot an escaping criminal who poses a serious danger to the public
Why 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
Arm 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.

Writing samples:

In many countries, laws are quite flexible to let ordinary individuals carry firearms while in many other countries it is quite hard to get a license, even for a notable person, to own a gun. It is often said that when a state or country allows its citizens to carry weapons, the crime and violence rates increase there and I quite agree with this statement.

First, guns are meant to shot someone either to wound or kill him. Thus the very objective of a gun is to kill a person and thus this deathly weapon can only increase the crime and violence in a society. For example, we can compare a country like the USA, where carrying a gun is allowed, with a country like Japan, where it is restricted. In 2014, when the United States experienced over 18,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 14 and this is quite an alarming comparison that reveals how firearms ownership by mass people can increase violence in a country.

Second, research indicates that owning and carrying a gun can psychologically affect our behaviours and thus people often commit crimes only because they have guns with them. Accidental, psychological, and family violence gunshot wounds and death are quite high in many countries, especially where people can carry guns with them, and the only way to reduce such crime rate is to restrict the ownership of guns.

In conclusion, the only reason the authority would permit someone to carry a gun is to ensure the safety of this person. However, the reality is quite contrary and allowing people to carry guns is actually letting criminals also won it. Thus there is no doubt that people in a country should not be allowed to carry firearms and restricting it would significantly decrease the crime and violence.

COMPOSITION 2:

Whether normal citizens can have guns or not has been a frequent topic of discussion for a long period. Recent US gun shot which killed innocent children and responsible staff brought endless sorrow to the community and arouse the public's rethinking towards gun control.

Advocates, who maintain gun ownership is a civil right , hold on the belief that firearms play an essential role in self-defense. Specifically, as gun control laws and policy vary greatly around the word, some people from countries where rights to keep and bear arms are guaranteed by national constitution treat gun possession as individual liberties. Besides, researches have also shown that victims armed with a weapon are less likely to be murdered or robbed than those who don't have one when crime occurs.

Nevertheless, opponents suggest that the government should enact strict laws to forbid guns. Assault weapons easily accessible to the public , to some extent ,increase the rate of suicide and domestic violence . Generally speaking, suicide candidates have greater chances to kill themselves successfully with a gun at hand than others using alternative methods. Moreover, devastating harm caused by gunshot supports the notion that a federal ban on assault weapons should take effect. A weapon is so powerful that a criminal can shoot so many people in such short time. What's even worse, it seems to be more difficult to resist and overtake a criminal with a gun. Therefore, compared with other violence, serial gunshot normally lead to higher death toll . Overall, the availability of purchasing , trading and bearing guns puts the whole societal members under threat and disrupt the stability of the nation as a whole.

To sum up, whilw we may need guns for self protection, I personally stick to the latter opinion that guns are better controlled or even banned in public. Whereas in those countries where gun possession is historically legal, harsher measures should be taken to scrutinize the nation's gun laws, mental health system and the role that violent video games and movies might play in shootings.