As the global crime rate increases, citizens start arguing about the feasibility of possession

of firearms for self-defense. Advocates consider that guns are extremely effective tools to
protect themselves, whilst opponents believe that owning those kinds of weapons only will
deteriorate social chaos. In this essay I will explore the perspectives of both groups,
expressing my agreement for the latter notion.

The radical advocacy results from the feeling of unsafety and anxiety due to the rising crime
cases. Therefore, the thought of holding sidearms to reduce crime threat to life occurs to
ordinary citizens. However, I totally can’t stand this suggestion at all, even thinking that
owning guns will worsen this miserable situation. According to the global safety index table
this year, the top rankings are all from Northern Europe, which maintains social security
through police guard and education. On the opposite side, the United States, where all the
citizens are authorized to have their own guns, has a badly low ranking.

The opposing argument is that guns are seen as a deadly weaponry which aren't supposed
to be in the hands of the general public. Hence, legalization of firearms is still too risky to
initiate. As the saying goes, the water that bears the boat is the same that swallows it up. I’m
completely in favor of this proposal that there is no possibility to take to improve social
peace. There are countless random shooting cases all over the place in America because
owning guns is legal. Several innocent people were dead and got hurt even though they had
guns to defend themselves.

In conclusion, although our society is becoming increasingly dangerous, authorizing the

public to use weapons is no longer a proper method. I advocate gun-control doubtlessly, as I
believe that allowing firearms won’t elevate the safety rate but cause more severe tragedy.