Table of Contents
In the past few years, there have been several crime cases involving gun shoot outs due to possession of guns by the public. The government of Saudi Arabia has been silent about the matter despite several killings that occur due to the availability of guns in the hands of citizens. Several people argue that possession of guns is relevant in the sense that it enhances individual security (Kopel & Wollstein 17). Bans of handguns have been effective in other countries and have been a significant issue for several years. Most people have differing views about whether hand guns need to be banned or not. Some people argue that the government of Saudi Arabia should have banned handguns long time ago while others argue that the government should not ban the rights of people to possess handguns at all (Kenneth 19). However, it is beneficial to ban guns from the hands of the citizens than letting them possess them. The ultimate aim of this context is to examine the discussion as to whether hands guns should be banned or not.
Benefits of Gun Control
To begin with, guns are the key causes of violence in Saudi Arabia. Guns are very disastrous firearms because they are simple to carry around and hide. They are dangerous in the sense that they can kill multitude of people in a couple of minutes. They are able to incessantly fire and kill or injure a large number of people without reloading. This clearly shows that they are insecure in private hands (Fisher 61). Moreover, several people who own handguns take advantage of other people and rob or harass them because they possess the guns. In society, people do argue and disagree on certain issues but later on agree and make peace as a way of fostering peace and harmony. However, the fact that other people own handguns makes it impossible for such arguments to end without violence. People who have them always take advantage of other people; they bully them, injure or even kill them because nobody is concerned about their possession of the guns. Thieves also take advantage of the situation to violate and rob people because they have the freedom to own guns. This means that crime rate elimination can never progress and end.Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
Besides, there is no doubt that guns are deadly weapons whose main function is to kill. There is no way an individual may spend a lot of money on a gun just for protection in case they are attacked. People purchase the handguns to kill because that is the only function of guns. Therefore, the fewer individuals possess them the better for the society (Kopel & Wollstein 93). The only people who have the right to have guns are the security personnel who are paid for providing security to the public. They are also trained and instructed when and how to use the guns. They can never use them to kill innocent people no matter what because they know the consequences. If the government is ready to take action on police forces and personnel for misusing the guns, why can they impose the same rules to the public? It is also clear that nobody in the public understands the proper usage of guns, which means that they are ready to use it whenever they are disappointed with someone. Therefore, since citizens do not the rules and principles governing possession of guns, the government has to burn them from possessing them.
Cons of Gun Control
However, some people argue that gun control laws should not be implicated in Saudi Arabia because possession of guns has advantages. First, they argue that possessing guns is inherent concept of Saudi culture and prohibiting them would not make them diminish or reduce their dangers (Kopel & Wollstein 112). They suggest that in order to guard themselves and their families as well as their properties, it is their lawful right as citizens to possess weapons for self-defense. They add on that the community cannot turn out to be safer by confining gun possession since guns do not kill people, people who kill people (Kenneth 43). A gun cannot shoot itself; an individual to harm another person must use it. People can still kill other people even without guns. If they ban guns, they should ban all weapons such as knives, machetes, swords and any other harmful weapon. They add on that in several cases that involve firearms or guns, the weapon employed is not obtained legally or registered, it is either smuggled or creep from registered owners.
Whereas a section of the Saudi law promises people the right to possess guns, another alteration makes possessing a handgun problematic and several people feel that their constitutional civil rights are being infringed. It is also argued that if the honest citizens have guns, they are in good positions to tackle circumstances where they find themselves colliding with criminals, thus reducing the crime rates (Fisher 72).
Solution to the Problem
Generally, guns should be banned from the public because misuse of guns is also observed in sport shooting or in gun culture that glamorizes and legalizes needless gun ownership. People who participate in these games have guns and are able to misuse them during the actual sports events or any other time. The government needs to come in and sensitize people concerning the lethal dangers of guns and firearms and to convince them to stop such fatal sports (Fisher 88). The government can also go further to ban these types of sports and disown the participants off their guns. The best way to go about it is to compensate every person who submits his or her gun to the government in order to encourage the public to submit them.
The government should also ensure that there is legislation that confiscates all handguns from the public (Kenneth 101). The legislation should also allow registration of the all guns and impose tax ammunition of more than 400 percent in order to make it difficult for the public to possess them. Therefore, when all these policies and legislations are imposed, criminal cases would reduce drastically and make the Saudi Arabia citizens to leave in harmony.