Every time, in a state where the possession and carrying of firearms is permitted, a murder occurs with the help of these weapons, which is then publicized, the society is divided into two camps. Some believe that ordinary citizens should not have access to firearms at all, others – that people should not be deprived of weapons, because this is the only effective way of self-defense. And yet, does it make sense to allow free carrying of weapons?
First you need to understand that storing and carrying weapons is not the same thing. In some states, a person may have a fixed number of firearms, but cannot take them out of his home. Sometimes an ordinary citizen can gain access to weapons only by becoming a member of a shooting club, sometimes only if he is an entrepreneur. So the concept of “free possession of weapons” is very extensible. But consider the arguments of supporters and opponents of weapons permits.
Arguments of opponents of weapons
“Normal people use weapons only for self-defense, and criminals can always find firearms”
And this is not always the case either. In the United States, all sorts of mass killings with the use of firearms occur, unfortunately, quite often (and we don’t know about the minor killings, which were not publicized). Perhaps if firearms were prohibited, such killings would still occur, but clearly not in such numbers as we can see today.
“The human right to protect his property is sacred, and no one can take away this right”
Maybe this is true, but who said that the protection of private property must necessarily be with the use of firearms? Why it is impossible to use special pneumatics? And no one has canceled the good old baseball bat …
“Firearms permit does not increase, but on the contrary, lowers the crime rate in the country”
This is only partially true, because statistics sometimes show the opposite. As an example, we can look at the same Guatemala.
As we can see, both supporters and opponents of firearms have convincing arguments that, nevertheless, can be challenged. Let everyone decide for himself whether he wants weapons approval in his country. This happened in Brazil in the 2005th year, where the question of a ban was submitted to a referendum, and 64% of those who voted did not support this initiative. Thus, permission to carry firearms in this country can be called morally justified.
Dear readers, we intentionally made up such a short list of arguments for and against arms, leaving room for discussion. You are a supporter of the weapon, or an adversary – in any case, please share your thoughts in the comments.
Free storage and carrying of weapons: the pros and cons