(editorial 2)
Pros about keeping a gun
August 30, 2018
- by Shreya LN and Yamini R V Mohite
First of all, in Qatar, possession of a firearm without a licence is punishable by a jail sentence of up to fourteen years. In committee, the pros and cons of civilians owning guns was being spoken about and the delegate of Afghanistan had quite a lot to say.
In Afghanistan, firearms are provided to the civilians, or bought by the civilians with a license. The delegate of Afghanistan strongly stated that ‘most’ of the citizens use these guns for self-defence. It is very much possible that the civilians themselves may become non state actors by the influence of these firearms. But, this would not really happen if the background of the person the firearm or the licence for the firearm is being sold to is first checked and only then the licence is provided.
Supposing the Taliban attacked a village in Afghanistan. If the government was aware that such a thing would happen, all possible efforts would of course be made to put these attacks down. But, the Taliban, or for that case, any group of non-state actors would not tell the government that, “we’re coming to have a shooting in this village, be ready!” so what are the civilians of that village supposed to do if such a scene happens? The only way they have to truly defend themselves in such cases is to
use guns. What other way is there? Running away? The delegate of Switzerland had different opinions about the possession of firearms by civilians. She said that instead of using a gun for self-defence, we can use other weapons, maybe household items or something from the kitchen or even martial arts. So what did she basically imply? She implied that if a person or non-state actor pulls out an AK-47 and points it at a civilian, they are supposed to defend themselves with martial arts or a knife used to cut vegetables right? Not to be harsh, but this is one of the silliest things a delegate has stated in committee.
Also, by not providing licence for the possession of firearms to any citizen in a nation just means that the government of that nation does not trust the citizens of that nation. This was what the delegate of France had to say because it was strongly felt that the government of France does not trust its citizens with firearms. In contradiction to this, the delegate of Afghanistan said that, “by providing licenced guns, they are only protecting the safety of their residents and not increasing violence.” Since, most mass shootings take place using illegal weapons; acts should be brought about to reduce the amount
of illegal weapons globally and even to make these weapons extinct. This is better than not trusting common civilians with firearms for defence.
Possession of firearms is of course not illegal. But, before providing any individual with a gun, there must be a background check on that individual and also it must be checked if they are mentally stable or not. Mentally unstable people are capable of doing various foolish and un-intelligent things without thinking. Hence, providing a gun in the hand of a disturbed or mentally unstable person might not be
the wisest thing to do.
Finally, having stated these pros of a civilian possessing a gun in the name of self-defence, licences must be provided to mentally stable civilians after a certain age. In some countries this age might be eighteen and in some others, it might be twenty one. Also, laws have to be made to regulate the use of these guns. These laws will ensure that the firearms will be used only in case of emergencies such as self-defense.
Pros about keeping a gun
August 30, 2018
- by Shreya LN and Yamini R V Mohite
First of all, in Qatar, possession of a firearm without a licence is punishable by a jail sentence of up to fourteen years. In committee, the pros and cons of civilians owning guns was being spoken about and the delegate of Afghanistan had quite a lot to say.
In Afghanistan, firearms are provided to the civilians, or bought by the civilians with a license. The delegate of Afghanistan strongly stated that ‘most’ of the citizens use these guns for self-defence. It is very much possible that the civilians themselves may become non state actors by the influence of these firearms. But, this would not really happen if the background of the person the firearm or the licence for the firearm is being sold to is first checked and only then the licence is provided.
Supposing the Taliban attacked a village in Afghanistan. If the government was aware that such a thing would happen, all possible efforts would of course be made to put these attacks down. But, the Taliban, or for that case, any group of non-state actors would not tell the government that, “we’re coming to have a shooting in this village, be ready!” so what are the civilians of that village supposed to do if such a scene happens? The only way they have to truly defend themselves in such cases is to
use guns. What other way is there? Running away? The delegate of Switzerland had different opinions about the possession of firearms by civilians. She said that instead of using a gun for self-defence, we can use other weapons, maybe household items or something from the kitchen or even martial arts. So what did she basically imply? She implied that if a person or non-state actor pulls out an AK-47 and points it at a civilian, they are supposed to defend themselves with martial arts or a knife used to cut vegetables right? Not to be harsh, but this is one of the silliest things a delegate has stated in committee.
Also, by not providing licence for the possession of firearms to any citizen in a nation just means that the government of that nation does not trust the citizens of that nation. This was what the delegate of France had to say because it was strongly felt that the government of France does not trust its citizens with firearms. In contradiction to this, the delegate of Afghanistan said that, “by providing licenced guns, they are only protecting the safety of their residents and not increasing violence.” Since, most mass shootings take place using illegal weapons; acts should be brought about to reduce the amount
of illegal weapons globally and even to make these weapons extinct. This is better than not trusting common civilians with firearms for defence.
Possession of firearms is of course not illegal. But, before providing any individual with a gun, there must be a background check on that individual and also it must be checked if they are mentally stable or not. Mentally unstable people are capable of doing various foolish and un-intelligent things without thinking. Hence, providing a gun in the hand of a disturbed or mentally unstable person might not be
the wisest thing to do.
Finally, having stated these pros of a civilian possessing a gun in the name of self-defence, licences must be provided to mentally stable civilians after a certain age. In some countries this age might be eighteen and in some others, it might be twenty one. Also, laws have to be made to regulate the use of these guns. These laws will ensure that the firearms will be used only in case of emergencies such as self-defense.
Delegate of Afghanistan was pretty sure about what he was saying about self-defense in his country.was he this sure because he was so sure that the civilans WILL need self defense against the taliban.
Guns are pretty cool, but only when used the right way
Comments
Post a Comment