Correction/armes Pour Demain!

[Peyton483]

Bonsoir à tous!!

Je dois rendre pour demain un devoir qui répond à la question suivante: Es-tu pour ou contre le port d'armes?

Pouvez lire mon sujet et me dire les fautes que j'ai commises?

Merci beaucoup!!!!

Introduction

Today, not a week goes by without the media evocatinga tragedy due to violence: terrorism, bomb attacks, bloody murders, assaultedinnocents … The fact is we are living in a dangerous world –or at least that iswhat we are told. Thus, people feel less and less safe, hence the questions:should we defend ourselves under our own steam? Should the bear of arms be allowed?/This raises the question of whether we should defend … The debate between proand anti guns is still a burning issue.

1ère partie: arguments pro-guns

Some people would do anything to feel safer, includedbearing arms. In that way, we count more than 80 million gun owners in the UnitedStates and about 280 million firearms (in civilian hands) in the country for a totalpopulation of 310 million. Indeed, there, the Constitution, particularly theSecond Amendment, guarantees the right of owning a gun: “A well regulatedMilitia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of thepeople to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” According to the pro-guns,the Founding Fathers strongly wanted the American people to be armed in order toprotect their freedom against some totalitarian governments: in fact, an armedpopulation cannot be forced to discard her freedom of speech, worship, etc. Thus,owning a gun is a right deeply fixed in people’s minds, in their culture. In addition,one of the most telling arguments of gun advocates is that it permits to savelives: upwards of one million times annually, armed private citizenssuccessfully stand up for themselves against criminal attacks. As the police arenot always present to defend you, firearms seem to be the most precious toolsto face an assailant. Moreover, it can be used as an equalizer, especially forwomen, since most aggressors are bigger and stronger than the person they aresetting upon. Consequently, a lot of households prefer adopting guns lest beingattacked, so as to defend their home, their belongings and their relatives. So,for those families, it is often a responsibility, even a duty, and a way to be “goodAmerican citizens”. Another argument in support of this approach is that theBible makes a reference to “an eye for an eye”, in other words to the law ofretaliation: a person who has injured another one can return the offendingaction to the originator in compensation. Therefore, it could allow people toget his revenge on someone else, why not using a weapon…

Ultimately, some people are also in favor of the bearof arms for a totally different reason: they consider guns as a hobby and theypractice sports as hunting and target shooting. Actually, owning a rifle forthe purpose of hunting is pretty common in the United States. More and moreAmericans tend also to buy guns since it is known as an advantageousinvestment.

2ème partie: arguments anti-guns

Though,a lot of people, not only in the United States, find it difficult to share theopinion that guns should be allowed. First, they talk about figures: with morethan 280 million of firearms in circulation across the United States, we countover 30,000 gun-related deaths each year whereas in Europe that number neverexceeds four hundred and in Japan fifty. So, if weapons would really protectpeople from death, the United States should be by far the safest country in thedeveloped world. But it is not. This argument is often used by gun-haters toshow how senseless is the bear of arms and to highlight the connection betweengun violence and presence of guns: with a free access to arms, that is not sosure that guns don’t fall into the wrong hands, and a firearm is blatantly morelikely to kill you than to help you. For instance, a weapon at home involves inherentdangers. First, guns require high caution from the owners especially when theyare parents: it can place a child in grave danger if he can access to it,similarly an adult who has not been taught to use a firearm can put his life –and the one of the others – in danger. In that way, in the United States, theabundance of accidental shooting deaths and injuries is an evidence of therisks in using weapons. Moreover, it is not unusual that guns kept at home forself-protection are used against the owner during assaults. In addition, theavailability of firearms in shops increases risk of suicides or tragedies suchas the one of Columbine High school.

Besides,the right to bear arms and to use it raises some ethical questions/fundamentalquestions on ethic: what about the “you shall not kill” from the Bible? Do wehave the right to decide if a thief must die? The argument of theself-protection can be easily contradicted since there are other ways to defendyourself instead of using something which has been created to kill: tasers (anon-lethal weapon which uses electrical current), tear-gas or pepper sprays, alarmsystems, etc.

Anotherdanger of the legalization of the bear of arms is making violence common: maybeone day, gun-related incidents will/might not make the headlines yet.Similarly, the pervasiveness of violence on TV and in video games can increasethe risk to see people taking advantage of the access to guns to act like inthis virtual world namely to commit murders.

Finally,anti-guns often blame lobbies such as NRA (National Rifle Association) to havean interest in selling firearms. Indeed, as the gun lobby represents the gunindustry, the more people buy guns the more they make money. That’s why the NRAtries to convince Americans that owning guns will make them safer, even if it supposesspreading misleading information.

Conclusion/opinion:

The problem we have considered – namely should we beallowed to bear arms – clearly does not admit of an easy solution. Indeed, botharguments in favor of and against that right are tenable: who would refuse touse a gun to save the life of a relative? On the contrary, how could we denythe connection between guns and a high crime rate in the United States?

However, speaking personally, of the two points ofview, the last seems to offer the most convincing arguments/reasoning: I dothink that a gun is a threat to people’s lives and causes numerous unintendedconsequences. In addition, the bear of arms raises some fundamental questionson ethic such as the right to decide if someone has to live or die.

[Jean B]

Bonjour,

Ne t'y prends-tu pas un tout petit peu trop tard ?

Je dois rendre pour demain un devoir qui répond à la question suivante: Es-tu pour ou contre le port d'armes?

Pouvez lire mon sujet et me dire les fautes que j'ai commises?

Merci beaucoup!!!!

Introduction

Today, not a single week goes by without the media evocating a tragedy due to violence: terrorism, bomb attacks, bloody murders, assaulted innocents… The fact is we are living in a dangerous world –or at least that is what we are told. Thus, people feel less and less safe, hence the questions: should we defend ourselves under our own steam? Should the bear of bearing/carrying firearms be allowed?/This raises the question of whether we should defend ourselves… The debate between pro and anti guns is still a burning issue.

1ère partie: arguments pro-guns

Some people would do anything to feel safer, including bearing arms. In That way, we count more than 80 million gun owners in the United States and about 280 million firearms (in civilian hands) in the country for a total population of 310 million. Indeed there, the Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, guarantees the right of owning a gun: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” According to the pro-guns,the Founding Fathers strongly wanted the American people to be armed in order to protect their freedom against some totalitarian governments: in fact, an armed population cannot be forced to discard her their<possessif collectif freedom of speech, worship, etc. Thus, owning a gun is a right deeply fixed in people’s minds, in their culture. In addition, one of the most telling arguments of gun advocates is that it permits to save lives: upwards of one million times annually, armed private citizens successfully stand up for themselves against criminal attacks. As the police are not always present to defend you, firearms seem to be the most precious tools to face an assailant. Moreover, it can be used as an equalizer, especially for women, since most aggressors are bigger and stronger than the person they are setting upon. Consequently, a lot of households prefer adopting guns lest being attacked, so as to defend their home, their belongings and their relatives. So,for those families, it is often a responsibility, even a duty, and a way to be “good American citizens”. Another argument in support of this approach is that the Bible makes a reference to “an eye for an eye”, in other words to the law of retaliation: a person who has injured another one can return the offending action to the originator in compensation. Therefore, it could allow people to get his<voir plus haut revenge on someone else, why not using a weapon…

Ultimately, some people are also in favor of the bear of bearing arms for a totally different reason: they consider guns as a hobby and they practice such sports as hunting and target shooting. Actually, owning a rifle for the purpose of hunting is pretty common in the United States. More and more Americans also tend also to buy guns since it is known as an advantageous investment.

2ème partie: arguments anti-guns

Though, a lot of people, not only in the United States, find it difficult to share the opinion that guns should be allowed. First, they talk about figures: with more than 280 million of firearms in circulation across the United States, we count over 30,000 gun-related deaths each year whereas in Europe that number never exceeds four hundred and in Japan fifty. So, if weapons would really protect people from death, the United States should be by far the safest country in the developed world. But it is not. This argument is often used by gun-haters to show how senseless is the bear of arms and to highlight the connection between gun violence and presence of guns: with a free access to arms, that is not so sure that guns don’t fall into the wrong hands, and a firearm is blatantly more likely to kill you than to help you. For instance, a weapon at home involves inherent dangers. First, guns require high caution from the owners especially when they are parents: it can place a child in grave serious danger if he can reach/access to it, similarly an adult who has not been taught to use a firearm can put his life –and the one of the others – in danger. In that way, in the United States, the abundance of accidental shooting deaths and injuries is an evidence of the risks in using weapons. Moreover, it is not unusual that guns kept at home for self-protection are used against the owner during assaults. In addition, the availability of firearms in shops increases risks of suicides or tragedies such as the one of Columbine High school.

Besides,the right to bear arms and (to) use it them raises some ethical questions/fundamental questions on ethics: what about the “you shall not kill” from the Bible? Do we have the right to decide if a thief must die? The argument of the self-protection can be easily contradicted since there are other ways to defend oneself instead of using something which has been created to kill: tasers (a non-lethal weapon which uses electrical current), tear-gas or pepper sprays, alarm systems, etc.

Another danger of the legalization of the bear of bearing arms is making violence common: maybe one day, gun-related incidents will/might not make the headlines yet. Similarly, the pervasiveness of violence on TV and in video games can increase the risk to see of seeing people taking advantage of the access to guns to act like in this virtual world namely to commit murders.

Finally, anti-guns often blame lobbies such as the NRA (National Rifle Association) to have an interest in selling firearms. Indeed, as the gun lobby represents the gun industry, the more people buy guns the more they make money. That’s why the NRA tries to convince Americans that owning guns will make them safer, even if it supposes spreading misleading information.

Conclusion/opinion:

The problem we have considered – namely should we be allowed to bear arms – clearly does not admit of an easy solution. Indeed, both arguments in favor of and against that right are tenable: who would refuse to use a gun to save the life of a relative? On the contrary, how could we deny the connection between guns and a high crime rate in the United States?

However, speaking personally, of the two points of view, the last latter seems to offer the most convincing arguments/reasoning: I do think that a gun is a threat to people’s lives and causes numerous unintended consequences. In addition, the bear of arms raises some fundamental questions on ethics such as the right to decide if someone has to live or die.