Expression écrite en anglais: pour ou contre le port des armes?

                                                                       27/09/2006

Terminale S

Pro gun and anti gun

Topic : Present a two sided arguments.

            Today, an increasing number of people in the world own a gun. Opinions are mitigated. Our society is divided into two sides: pro gun and anti gun. The question of bearing an arm is a subject of preoccupation for many. Medias show us lots of worrying tragedies which took place because people used arms to cause damages, to hurt others…  And nowadays, we may wonder whether bearing an arm is a good thing, or not. Let’s weigh the pros and cons of this controversial subject.

            To begin with, let’s study the opinion of pro gun people, or people who think that to bear an arm is justified in our society.

            At first sight, one might think that it is quite normal. In a sense, they are not wrong. When you look in a dictionary what is an arm, the word “defence” is written. So, bearing an arm to assure your security, to reassure yourself, is a good argument. We can quote the example of old people. Do you really think that prohibition of bearing weapons prevents people from attacking little old women without defence? The question was to be asked.

In addition to that, liberalists think that the question of owning arms concerns personal freedom, the natural right to safe defence, and we cannot reproach them for the logic of their opinions. Besides, they often add that it is inconceivable that official governments like the police, soldiers have the right to bear arms to defend citizens if this right does not belong to the citizens, who can choose freely to delegate it or to use it themselves.

            Secondly, for the great majority of people, the question is to know if the law must authorize the bearing of weapons or not, but they make a mistake. In fact, the criminals will be always armed and no law will disarm them. The law can force them to hide their weapons, but when they want to cause damage, they always will be more armed than their victims. Laws prohibiting bearing arms are not other thing only laws which disarm potential victims. And it is absurd to claim that the free bearing of weapon would confer an advantage to the criminals.

            Thirdly, in the south of america (mexico), in the united states too, for instance, arms, guns are part of the culture. A myth had been created with Westerns. John Wayne, Clint Eastwood became heroes, and most citizens think they have the inalienable right to bear arms like them. Why in movies and not in reality?

We will finish this part by stressing the fact that the bearing of weapons has always been the distinctive mark of the free man, in opposition to the member of a dominated nation, the slave.

            However, when you look at it closely, it is obvious that owning an arm does not present only advantages... Let’s study the arguments of the anti gun sides.

            To start with, it is necessary to introduce this notion by quoting Charlton Heston, the NRA President: “There's no such thing as a good gun. There's no such thing as a bad gun. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a very dangerous thing. A gun in the hands of a good person is no danger to anyone except the bad guys...”. Why not? But how can you tell who is a bad man and who is a good person? In doubt, should we give weapons to everyone? It is so inconsistent and stupid!

For instance, we just need to follow the news to hear about “school shooting”. It shows not only that children can be killed by weapons, but also that they can have very easy access to it! That could happen in canada one week ago, at columbien high school in 2000, in licoln county at fayetteville in 1998, in cleveland at stockton in 1989... it a good example to show the danger of weapons.

            Then, if bearing arms is allowed, a new system will rule, no democracy but anarchy. A new system involves new laws: the survival of the fattest and the law of the richest. You are rich, you buy a machine gun, and you are stronger than the poor who has only a little pistol. It lacks coherence.

            Moreover, we can see, in the literature with the excellent Victor Hugo for instance, the important combat which lots of people carried out against the death sentence. If you can take the law into your own hands, justice will disappear… “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, you hurt me, you robe me, I kill you, justice is done… No, it is not the way a society should work.

            All in all, in my opinion, there is no doubt that bearing an arm is unacceptable. Our society is becoming more and more violent. Young people play violent games, they kill virtual people, they make virtual wars and on the whole they confuse it with reality. “Why am I allowed to empty my magazine, and kill everybody in my game and not in reality?” Right, it is so confusing… Young people who lack bearing can become evils with weapons.

            I will finish thus on this subject: I am convinced that the question of bearing an arm or not in the usa is not solved for political reasons. Which politicians would go so far as to attack the 2^nd Amendment?

Copie évaluée par professeur: 17/20

NB: Les fautes sont ici corrigées.