Gun Control Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 1

Gun Control - Essay Example The opponents of gun control argue that guns are necessary for self-protection. Furthermore, they would ensure self defense when police fail to provide protection to general public. The proponents of this view believe that a burglar will always be armed and it gives him a higher advantage than the common man. If the general public also is given guns it may counter balance the situation. However, evidently gun is not devised to threaten or injure someone but to kill; hence the free use of guns must be banned on the following grounds. In the first place, nobody takes serious care of guns that it has become a common utensil like knife or pen. Guns are very often misused by everyone especially school children. When they get emotionally upset, instead of seeking some counseling measures, they pick parent’s gun and shoot at their peers and teachers. As reported in the New York Times, in the 90s, the number of children carrying guns to the school was more than one lakh in the US. It is also reported that â€Å"both gun carrying and gun violence are phenomena almost entirely confined to world outside schools† (Cleck, cited in Texas Plan for guns in school may not comply with state law, Aug 19, 2008). The statistics clearly shows the incidents like shooting in a college of Alabama killing one woman wounding three on April 7th 2011. The killing of 12 elementary school students by a gun man in Rio De Jeniro, Brazil on April 8th stands on the top of all such incidents (School shootings, May 2, 2011). The practice of allowing children to get access to and use guns is not digestible for common sense. The argument that guns are necessary for self protection in the US can be severed by pointing that guns can’t be carried to all the places. The exponents of such an argument must answer how they would secure their lives in such a place. But no law prevents a person from carrying his body to anywhere. So, those who are worried about their lives may master som e martial arts so that they can well protect themselves from a person coming to assault them. Some others argue that since criminals have guns, the public also must be given them to counter balance the situation. There are people who have the license to use guns. But still there are incidents like bank robbery and house breaking. If the license to use guns would well tackle the situation there would have been much decline in bank robbery, house breaking and so on. But unfortunately that does not happen. Recently, in Florida the auto dealership Nation’s Truck offered an imprudent promise of giving an AK-47 rifle for those who buy a truck. The idiotic offer of the company must be condemned on the ground that it is easy such a mass destructive weapons to reach the hands of the terrorists. This would add an extra asset to the stock piling of the evil doers as increase in the number of weapons also increase violence and the killing of innocent people. This shows the narrow concept of the companies to increase their profit without giving any consideration to social responsibility. Only licensed companies and government must be given the privilege to deal in arms and ammunition. Further, licenses given in case of inevitable circumstances must be limited to handguns and not to mass destructive weapons. In brief, I affirm that guns or any weapons are the means of destruction and killing, not of construction and creation. They are even