Tin Tức

With the rampant mass shootings nowadays, the debate surrounding guns has never been more necessary than it is now. The possession of firearms has only been legalised and normalised in recent decades, especially in the US following recent, though questionable, interpretations of the Second Amendment, yet the number of gun deaths per capita has soared unlike anything we have seen in the past. At the end of the day, guns are only tools, and it is up to the user to make responsible use of it. However, the lethal nature of gun usage is such that its use needs to be closely regulated, if not curtailed or banned altogether, to curb the number of needless deaths on the rise during what is supposed to be a peaceful time for us all.

Many of those in favour of firearm possession argue that guns are a necessity, often stating self-defence as the reason. This argument has its merits for the fact that an unarmed citizen is a defenceless citizen, especially in the face of danger. As often as there have been reports on gun violence, many have also been saved from an assault by this very lethal instrument. Guns have reportedly also been used as a means to de-escalate potentially dangerous situations and suppress and detain dangerous individuals. Citizens in remote areas where help from first responders is not as accessible may find guns to be essential, for they are the only line of defence they have. In light of such scenarios, one may find it unreasonable to restrict the use of guns as a means of self-defence.

That being said, guns are, at the end of the day, lethal weapons, whose irreversible lethality is only a trigger away from being unleashed. Even the Second Amendment itself, which has been interpreted by gun enthusiasts as a statement in favour of firearm possession, stated a very specific purpose for guns and a very specific group of people to have the right to possess guns. For every argument raised in the previous paragraph, one could raise an equally potent argument on why the aforementioned arguments are only valid because guns existed as a norm in society in the first place. The paradox that surrounds the gun debate is that people feel the need to carry guns to defend themselves against other gun carriers, the reality of which reflects a government that has failed to adequately regulate the possession of deadly firearms before there was any gun death to speak of. Sufficient regulation of guns is difficult to impose at a moment’s notice given the fact that firearm possession has become so deeply cemented in the minds of many, but it is not impossible. Had it not been for the shameless lobbying of entities who benefited from gun sales the most, perhaps stricter gun regulations would have already existed by the time this is written. 

Guns are, ultimately, a tool, but a deadly one at that. The tools themselves are never at fault, but it is nigh impossible to fully regulate the behaviour of every individual in an entire society. For that reason, acquisition and possession of guns should never have been as easy as they are now. In countries where firearm possession has become destructive, the only way to combat this worsening phenomenon is to impose stricter gun restrictions, by means of a licensing system, for example. 

VOCABULARY:
 

rampant (adj): tràn lan

firearms (n): súng cầm tay các loại

legalised (n): được hợp pháp hoá

per capita (adv, adj): bình quân đầu người

curtailed (n): được rút gọn

defenceless (adj): không có khả năng tự vệ

de-escalate (v): tiết giảm

suppress (v): đàn áp, chặn

irreversible (adj): không thể đảo ngược

paradox (n): ngược đời, nghịch lý

entities (n): những thực thể

destructive (adj): nghiêm trọng