As American culture prevails around the world, it is a controversial topic about

whether or not people should own firearms. The proponents claim that ownership of
such weapons is essential, while the opponents argue that spears are wholly
negative. In this essay, I will explore both groups' ideas before advocating for
the latter opinion.

Regarding the first group, from their perspective, owning firearms is essential for
liberty. Under the US Constitution, everyone has the right to possess a revolver.
However, I can't entirely agree with this argument, as I believe holding a pistol
does not represent freedom. According to a couple of studies,
democracy does not relate to the ownership of guns, as most democratic countries
have restrictive regulations and retributions for possessing such weapons.

On the other hand, dissidents stand for a different state from the former ideas,
as they hold that armaments are entirely pernicious for the community. Gun violence
is unimaginable in the US, and such delinquency traumatises Americans. I vigorously
support this notion, from my knowledge, that the majority purpose of using pistols
is to elicit crime. Studies have revealed gun ownership in the US, with more than
500 people passing every day because of violence committed by firearms.

In conclusion, while there is an image of those revolvers as a symbol of freedom,

regardless, there is an opposite side variance with this view, as those opponents
reckon that such weapons are ruining society and eradicating civilians’ safety. I
reputed that individuals should not possess firearms with any purpose.