"The right to bear arms is not the direct cause of the level of violence in a country."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the previous statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement may or may not hold true and explain how those considerations shape your position.
Given a number of considerable mass-murders and shootouts, or crime in general, such as the Virginia Tech Shootout in 2002, Or the Norway mass murders or the Connecticut school shootout;
one may be inclined to think that there is a correlation between the availability of arms and the legal allowance to bear arms, and the level of violence in a country or a region. I believe This is
partially true, and I believe that he root cause of violence is not arms bearing.
One may argue about the validity of the relationship between violence levels and the allowance of bearing arms: citizens in a country can be allowed to bear arms for a number of reasons:
self-defense, hunting, etc. However, it should be pointed out that one is allowed to bear arms only for speicific reasons, and reasons which bring no harm (at least directly). However, if such
rights go unchecked and and proper meausres are not taken as to who should be allowed to carry a gun or any other weapon, it is inevitable that dangerous objects can occassionally fall in
the hands of wrong people, or lunatics who have no proper sense as to who to use an arm on. This may in turn lead to the aforementioned tragic events, and thus may increased violence levels.
However, it should be noted that such tragic events(i.e. mass shootouts) are few and far between. And also, it should be noted that people who cause such tragedy are not normal, mentally healthy
people. No, if one keeps up with the news, it is frequently revealed that such people usually have some unjustified vendetta against a particular group, or were not mentally sound, but rather had a
distorted view of their surroundings. Or let us consider the occassional shootout. Deaths happen beacuse of the usage of guns. However, the problem goes beyond the availability of guns.
Crime can be commonplace due to a number of reasons: Lack of education, a failing economy, an established organisation that committs illegal acts on a frequenct basis, etc. And therefore, the
right to bear arms pays a somewhat cursory role in violence levels. Let us consider the US, for example. The law allows people to bear arms in self defence. Despite that crime levels are significantly
low in more propserous cities or regions, and people do not usually bear arms. On the other hand, if we consider some less affluent cities, which has one of the worst crime levels in the nation, Detroit does suffer from
a number of gang wars, poor economy and a poor educational system.
Therefore, in consideration of the arguement made, the prompt made is somewhat correct, guns lead to more violence. However, the right to bear arms is not a direct cause of violence but rather a somewhat indirect cause of violence in a nation.
ps jkjeremy, you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org