Good Argumentative Essay About Disarming The General Population As A Security Measure

Introduction

The safety of the members of a nation is a priority of the government of the country. Therefore, decisions made should be to benefit the safety of the nation. Safety measures include minimizing threat levels to increase security. Weapons are a part of the world today as it is employed in defense of the country; it has also found use by the terrorists. Therefore, as a security measure, the government plans to disarm the entire nations so that even those who legally possess guns as a means of self-defense should surrender their weapons. This is among the security measure policies which the government has plans for enforcing to increase security in the nation. My support lies with the argument that James Wilson poses. The essence of this essay is to consider and analyze the arguments of James Wilson as to why citizens should not be disarmed as a security measure.

Discussion

James claims that self-defense is legit and a significant part of maintaining the security of people in a country. People acquire guns to protect themselves and their property from robbers. The fact that robbers are aware that there are citizens in possession of legal arms will make the robbers fear making random attacks which mean that the security of these people is enhanced. The argument that James posits is ideal because disarmament of citizens with guns will leave them and their property vulnerable to attacks. He cites an example of Europe where citizens are prohibited to own guns and the US where citizens can legally own guns for self-defense and shows the potent risk the citizens are exposed to minus their protection. The politicians claim that guns will lead to accidents yet James counters this line of thought by arguing that the fatal accidents caused by guns are equivalent to fatal car accidents. Therefore, there is no need to illegalize or constraint the sale of legal arms to the citizens (Wilson "Just Take Away Their Guns”).
As a counter argument, it is clear that disarming the citizens could prove useful in increasing security in the country. The fact that James claims that most guns are acquired through personal means, means that there are guns stolen from people who have legally acquired them. This means that the public is an indirect supplier of the ‘underworld’ with illegal weapons. Cutting off the supply will mean reducing the flow of firearms to the criminals increasing the security of the nation. However, this argument is rather shallow because the supply of these weapons is not limited to stealing from the citizens. The recent past has seen the police and security agents are robbed of their weaponry by criminals. Therefore, disarming the citizens may not be the best approach because they will be left defenseless, and the criminals will have guns. Thus, security will be worsened by such a move.

Conclusion

It is, therefore, important for the government to acquire a full picture before it can blindly rush into implementation of wrong policies. By considering the limiting factors of each option, the government can come up with better ideas of beefing up security. The government could increase the number of its security troops and increase patrols in areas that have been affected adversely by crime. Using appropriate technology, criminals can be identified from the general population and dealt with accordingly. In a nutshell, all I am saying is that the government can easily get a better means of solving the insecurity matter without condemning its citizens to be victims of crime.

Works Cited

Wilson, James. "Just Take Away Their Guns." New York Times 20 Mar. 1994. Print.