Introduction
Legalization of weapons has been a topical issue for discussion for a long time. Although the majority of the world population seems to be against the legalization of fire weapons, there exists an opposite viewpoint which justifies the legalization with rational and logical reasons. This paper aims to consider both of the opinions.
Legalization might result in all-round sale of fire weapons
It is claimed that people tend to think that everything that is not forbidden is allowed. Therefore, they are likely to ask themselves a question whether they should try something which is not banned. What is more, they are likely to give a positive answer since trying this happens to promise a new experience. Hence, legalization of fire weapons may be considered as an invitation to sit at the table. This appears to be a table which might be impossible to stand up from. Besides, sitting at this table appears to be dangerous to other people’s health and life. It is obvious that some people cannot be prevented from buying fire weapons either by prohibition or by the threat of probable punishment. However, this is a minority of marginal people who are unlikely to cease to exist. At the same time, the question is how many people might resist the temptation of trying a weapon once if they know that they will not be punished. Such a situation could involve a dramatic number of people (Bonnet, 180).
Taken into account the above-said, it may be reasonable to assert that legalization of fire weapons is a step from freedom of choice to permissiveness. Therefore, this is a step which must not be made because once the borderline is broken, it cannot be restored. Today, partial legalization is expected to be allowed, whereas tomorrow, weapons might be permitted for sale in some specialized trading points. Furthermore, after several years or decades have passed, weapons might be bought in the supermarket. Such an expressive opinion should not be treated as an exaggeration.
This is a universal truth that pneumonic weapons are a type of weapons, and it is dangerous. However, in the 21st century, they were legalized in some counties, and, thus, they have been allowed. It is important to note that any attempt to limit their abuse in various countries in the future might fail to have a positive outcome. It is possible to assume that such a state of affairs is due to the fact that pneumonic weapons managed to appear in the legal sphere, and because of their legalization they have to be battled with various methods. The point is that something which has been permitted proves rather difficult to be banned after that. Thus, the example of pneumonic weapons demonstrates that any types of weapons which are legalized tend to root in the society and stop being treated as something dangerous. What is more, skillful marketing might turn a gun into something to crave for. Therefore, in order to avoid the situation when at a party, there will be scatted not only bottles and cigarette ends but also bullets and blood, weapons must not be legalized. Hence, what must be done is as follows: 1) the struggle against fire weapons is expected to be enforced, 2) preventive measures are supposed to be taken, 3) more security assistance should be organized for people, and 4) the optimization of the struggles with illegal weapons suppliers and dealers should be implemented (Carmen 34-35).
Legalization is a fair state regulation
When it comes to the discussion of weapons legalization, people tend to forget about these obvious things. First, “to legalize” does not mean to “to allow” but “to make legal.” Without legalization, weapons might be distributed to marginal people in the black market and by power structures, which results in the increase in corruption and violence, as well as the deterioration of public order. If weapons are legalized, the state will improve the regulation of the issue. Second, the idea of a total extirpation of weapons, both pneumonic and fire, is acknowledged to be a utopia. Finally, legalization does not stand for marketing. This is a complex scientifically justified system with a differentiated approach. For example, forced self-defense should be allowed, whereas children should be explained that using a fire weapon might entrain dramatic consequences (Rouillon 178).
Over the past two decades, the legalization has been discussed due to the fact that repressive measures have entrained a negative outcome. Today’s street wars in unfavorable regions cause more deaths than it used to several decades ago. As a result of the technical progress, there have appeared many types. Besides, the attempt of the personal weapon control does not exist over the globe. Therefore, if the society is willing to solve the world problem of fire weapons, it is important to stop being enemies to each other and postpone serious discussions. This is what advocates of weapons legalization have suggested.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is necessary to point out that both of the positions look persuasive. However, adversaries of legalization seem conservative. Nevertheless, even if thought through in detail, legalization of weapons cannot be positively beneficial for the humanity.
Works Cited
Bonnet, Janette. “The Impact of Legalized Guns.” The Journal of Criminology. Vol. 14, no. 4. 2013, pp. 230-241.
Carmen, Patrick. Guns Legalization: Pros and Cons. Princeton University Press, 2013.
Rouillon, Serge. Taking Guns Easy. Pearson, 2014.