Task 18 Version 1 In some countries police officers do not carry guns. How does this affect the manner they implement law and order? Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of having a gun. Provide specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.
Some of the countries did not implement a policy which allows police officers to carry guns. In my opinion, the way police keeps track of justice is less severe compared to if it would has firearms. Advantages of carrying a gun are strengthened control over law violation among the citizens and increased effectiveness of the neutralizing criminals. On the other hand, it raises an overall gun violence in cities and possibilities of killing innocent people in the process of dispensing justice.
ReplyDeleteOne of the vital pros of using guns for police officers is a tightened compliance with the law. Citizens and even criminals by looking at the police officers would give up on their crimes with a high chance. This is because of the fear for own life. Another advantage could be the increment of effectiveness in catching offenders. The possibility of shooting into criminals might lead to termination of majority crimes.
On the other hand, having firearms from the government side will significantly increase the level of illegal trade of guns among the criminals. It can provoke prominent mafias to strengthen own forces, which, in turn, the level of criminality would tremendously increased. Other than that, a decent amount of innocent people and kids could be shot during the toughened fight between police and criminals. One of the examples could be the US. Despite the strong control of police officers, there are a lot of mass shootings in schools and between neighborhoods.
Overall, the application of guns in neutralizing crimes could benefit the society by lowering amount of small criminals and effective control over law violation. However, in turn, the government should be aware of counter attack from the criminal side, which can lead to a significant increase of crimes and innocent victims.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGood job for this version 1. I really admire your facility of the language. You are capable of writing good essay. My general suggestion in this essay is to assess the choice of words in the essay because as a reader there are words which I think are not appropriate for the sentence because it made me pause and read again the statement just for me to understand the meaning of the sentence example: increased effectiveness of the neutralizing criminals. I admire the idea that you use many vocabularies but you have to see to it that you have to use it appropriately to enhance the flow of ideas in the essay.
DeleteYou have a good start and good ending. Good job!
Look at my other suggestions:
1. Please check the grammar: less severe compared to if it would has firearms
2. Advantages of carrying a gun are strengthened control over law violation.... do you mean...advantages of carrying a gun can strengthened the control over law violations?
3. Citizens and even criminals by looking at the police officers would give up on their crimes with a high chance. Can this be written in this way to make it clear: Citizens and criminal by looking at the gunned police officers would have a high chance to give up or not to do the crime.
4. what do you mean by this?: termination of majority crimes. do you mean: termination of major crimes?
5. Other than that,.....can we use because of that...or because of this...Why i say so because this statement is the effect of the previous statement mentioned.
6. One of the examples could be the US ..... can this be written as One of the examples is the incident of mass shootings in the USA.
7. application of guns in neutralizing crimes.... i think application is not the right term here.Can we use: using of guns in neutralizing crimes.
8. by lowering amount of small criminals and effective control over law violation....can we add the word "having" before effective control
Just consider the suggestions and I know this will be a great essay in the making.
ReplyDeleteIn different countries law enforcement officers are not permitted to carry guns. I believe that this procedure is more advantageous than disadvantageous to the implementation of law and order around the world.
In the first place, the primary reason of being in possession of a gun is to prevent the extreme situations such as being in a conflict heavy zone from affecting yours or others’ safety. That is why distributing guns among police officers jeopardizes the main reason of having a gun. To put it into perspective, every country striving to maintain order on their territory already has trained teams of expert shooters, specifically created for preventing big disorders such as large-scale terrorism. In other words, having ordinary law enforcement teams operate with guns at their disposal will only create more disorder and spread panic among the population.
That said there are certain advantages to police officers having guns. One such benefit is that the ordinary criminals will be cowed by the threat of death upon a simple robbery or mugging. That situation will reduce the amount of day-to-day crime. Another reason to have the police officers armed is the effect it will have on people who still have not become crime doers. It will prevent ordinary people from becoming criminals.
Nevertheless, the more criminals will be frightened by the threat of guns among police officers, the more extreme the actions they are going to take. That is because some dangerous lawbreakers cannot avoid doing crime due to them being mentally unstable or being manipulated by others.
In conclusion, it is more detrimental than beneficial to have ordinary law enforcement officers carry and use guns for upholding morals and maintaining order.
Great job! You got me in this essay because of the following reasons:
Delete1. english is really good
2. good start and end
3. good flow of ideas
4. the choice of words are just in place
5. good argument
My general suggestion is that because you are making a stand but the flow of arguments is just enumerating the advantages and disadvantages. To make your claim valid it will be good that after enumerating the advantages and disadvanatages, you need to establish the connection of this on why you make a stand as seen in your introduction and conclusion in this essay.
I am excited to the outcome of this essay. Great job! Congrats.
Gun-carrying is prohibited for policemen in some countries. This can be followed by several effects influence their job and communication with offenders. For some reasons the firearm ban could be useful, because the society would feel much comfortable. However, it also emboldened the criminals, which might bring harm and destruction.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, having a gun provides better protection for police officers, because in cases of emergency some law-breakers can behave aggressively and be potentially dangerous for people. Therefore, it requires the use of the firearms to intimidate them. For example, most offenders are calm when detained, but there are situations where a resistance is performed. A police officer with a gun can easily defend himself, while for the one who is unarmed it can be worth great risks.
In addition, gun-carrying positively affects mental condition of the police officers. Their job is continuously connected with various dangers. Hence, for them the firearm could feel calming during duty operations. Moreover, police officers are well-educated for carrying guns, so the probability of danger is mostly close to zero.
On the other hand, nowadays the problem of carrying weapons is very urgent, and the society is increasingly moving in the direction of refusing to carry and use firearms. Having guns is associated with great fear among modern community. For example, a police officer, who have used a firearm, even if for own protection, may become a victim of public censure. Afterwards, it could negatively affect the entire police department.
In conclusion, gun-carrying is still an unsolved issue. It’s use is directly related to the positive and negative consequences.
Good job! This is a great work. You have the facility of the language. You have good arguments. Keep up the good work!
DeleteJust consider the following suggestions and observations
1. I am not understanding this statement:
This can be followed by several effects influence their job and communication with offenders.
There are many ideas going on but I am not sure if they are connected to one another or you just need to put comma. Please consider revising.
2. where a resistance is performed... i think resistance is not the proper word. Can you change this to ....resistance is observed?
3. ... them the firearm could feel calming ....can you rephrase these phrase, there is missing work I think because I understand what you mean but by looking at the sentence it seems that the firearms have the calming effect and not the policemen.
4. check the grammar...having guns is.. can we write this as having a gun is....
5. Your argument is that problem of carrying weapons is very urgent but for me explanation does not justify why this is very urgent. It will be good a real life example so that this will become researched based argument.
6. I feel that you can still add sentences to make your conclusion more powerful.
Just consider the suggestions and I think this has the potential to become a good essay. Keep up the good work!
Police officers do not own weapons in some countries. This essay will provide the advantages and disadvantages of the carrying weapons by police and on these grounds will build a logical conclusion.
ReplyDeleteTo get started, consider a couple of positive aspects of possessing weapons. Firstly, it helps to maintain order among citizens, since most malefactors are afraid of weapons. For example, carrying a weapon can prevent theft, assault and even killing. Secondly, with weapons, the police will feel more secure in the service. For instance, if a criminal tries to resist or attack a police officer, officers may use weapons.
Going to the drawbacks of carrying weapons by officers, some of the staff may use weapons for their own purposes. For example, officers may shoot those people who would try to escape or even kill them. Consequently, those who truly know how to handle them must own weapons. However, I believe that possession of weapons is important for police officers and the positive sides much more than the negatives.
In conclusion, I would like to say that weapons help a lot in maintaining order by citizens, and also prevents numerous crimes. Based on the these arguments, I believe that the police need to carry weapons.
Currently some national polices of countries have implementing their work without holding weapons. However, antigun policy among police officers leads to the changes in country’s law implementation in both effective and undesirable directions. In this essay I will examine the benefits and drawbacks of the burning issue and suggest my own opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe main advantage of having a gun can be considered as the officer’s ability to self-defend against a murderer or a robber. Police workers mostly prone to danger during the almost whole time due to it is absolutely risky and unsafe job. For instance, when the officer and dangerous criminal are fighting face-to-face, the officer always has a dominance over the criminal. Another benefit of having the gun is to be able to control the situation. The weapon gives the officers a power and influence over the criminals and citizens in order to take a discipline in the country.
Turning to the other side of an argument, the drawback of the armed police workers is a fear among the local residents. When the ordinary people see the national police officers with the guns in usual situations, they are scare to share the essential information and details of an accident with the legal workers. For instance, when witness is negotiated by person with the weapon, she or he starts intuitively feeling uncomfortable or even scare.
All things considered, the law and order implementation without holding the gun has both pros and cones. Personally, I believe that the police workers necessarily should have the weapon to fight against the criminal in order to save a judgment.
Hello my dear friend, I would say that your essay is really structured and informative. However, it has several mistakes:
Delete1) "In this essay I will..." you missed comma here
2) "witness is nigotiated by person" --> It would be better to use "person nigotiates witness" in this case
Using guns is prohibited for police officers in some countries and this influences the way in which law and order are implemented. Owning guns may assist police officers in controlling legality, but there are both drawbacks and benefits of carrying this type of weapons. In this essay, I will discuss some of the reasons why police officers ought to have guns and some of the problems that it can cause.
ReplyDeletePolice officers should carry guns with the purpose of protecting the community. They risk their lives and in situations of criminal attack with weapons or terrorist attacks police officers can defend themselves and others by being armed. Police with guns instill fear in would-be criminals and make people rely on them. Therefore, guns are important instruments that police officers need on duty.
On the other hand, guns have a great deal of disadvantages because an easy access to guns escalates the problems of committing crimes. For example, in US the majority of deaths are related to mass shootings that emergence almost every day. Unfortunately, sometimes people may not understand that owning firearms is a serious responsibility and this leads to an increase of incidents. However, the situations like this are seldom due to the fact that the governments such as Switzerland have strict rules for those who get guns and take firearm training very seriously, so that the citizens were not afraid of being attacked.
In conclusion, I think that in spite of the risks of arms proliferation, guns are necessary for police officers in order to defend people and keep order.
Nowadays, increasingly number of developed countries put the program when myrmidons of the law do not wear guns. In this essay, I will discuss both sides of this phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteThe main advantages of the wholesale rejection gun’s carrying for the police are proximity to the citizens. More countries use the law enforcers as depressing forces in order to stop rallies and control people. However, currently, Europe countries did not need to force their citizens to do something, because authority make all think so create comfortable conditions for nation.
The main disadvantages of the disarmament of police are the danger to their life. The police officers work is very grave, because they patrol the streets in order to safe humans’ life. As a result, the criminals could use these circumstances to break law down and police could not do anything without weapons.
In conclusion, this action is suitable to the developed nations, because they have a low rate of weapons crime as well as high life comfortability level. Nevertheless, the developing countries cannot include this practice, because it complicate already hard patrolmen’s life.
1)"Myrmidons of the law" - I really like that. Some memories of reading the Ancient Greek myths:)
Delete2) put "the" before increasingly number of developed countries.
3) try to replace "phenomenon". It is not really a phenomenon, to be honest, may be a policy or so.
4)"The main advantages" --> "One of the main advantages..."
5)"are proximity" --> "is the proximity"
6)"force" a lot of repetitions, try to replace with synonyms.
7)"authority make all think so create comfortable conditions for nation." - do not really understand that. I suggest to revise it. Probably "authority should make everything to create comfortable conditions for the nation"?
8)"The main disadvantages of the disarmament of police are the danger to their life." If you will talk about disadvantages, you should write more than 1 disadvantages in this case. So keep in mind that while writing. For this particular sentence, probably "one of the main disadvantages..."
9)"break law down" --> "tp break the law"
10)"these circumstances" which circumstances? disarmamebt of police or the patrolling of streets? I suggest it to make it clear and logical.
11) In the conclusion you should retell what you have wrote in the essay, so write about disadvantages and advantages rather than include new information.
12)Do not really understand it "complicate already hard patrolmen’s life". Try to revise it.
Good vocabulary <>
Good structure <>
Good logical flow of ideas <>
Overall, I like your essay. You did a great job! Please, include these suggestions in order to improve your essay )
Police department always plays a crucial role in a keeping a peace of the nation, but the usage of guns in some countries is forbidden. Although police officers are not allowed to use them excluding the specific situations, it can be advantageous in order to ensure the safety.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main advantages of possessing a gun by policeman is to protect their selves and other people who could be in danger. It is clear that in critical situations an offender will be able to use firearms to escape from the police. Therefore, officers just use them to get the law-breakers. For instance, person committing a crime can easily do everything in his plan and be confident that police officers could not catch him, and what is more dangerous that this person may injure civilian. Therefore, if police use the gun, they will have an opportunity to keep the rule of law and the order in the country, and citizens will trust them.
On the other hand, one of the vital drawbacks of possession a gun is uncontrolled usage of them. This is because people will know that by arm they can frighten others, and then uses it everywhere they want, even if it is not required. For example, if police personals are not controlling their guns, it can lead to the shooting of innocent citizens. To prevent country from alike situations it should be considered by police department to permit a license for gun.
In conclusion, it has more benefits in order to control the law and peace in the country. Moreover, the significance of acquiring the arms only in appropriate situations should be highlighted.
Great job! Your essay is really interseting; i like it, because:
Delete1. You have introduction and conclusion
2. Supported main points with an explanation and then an example
3. Varied your linking phrases with synonyms
4. Your word cound is okay, more than 250
However, there are some points, you need to work on
1. Check your writing mistakes(lawbreaks; possessing) and check your usage of articles( a policeman; a person; the country or countries; the uncontrolled usage)
2.You repeated the words like police, gun more than 3 time, try to replace them with synonyms
3. You need to give your opinion, because that was the part of the question
Hey, Cooper, a very good essay! ^)
Delete1)"in a keeping a peace" --> either "in keeping a peace" or "in a keeping of peace".
2)" is to protect" --> "is the protection".
3)"their selves" --> "themselves".
4)"law-breaker" --> "lawbreaker".
5)Please clarify about how the lawbreakers are going to escape from the police, and how the latter will get the lawbreakers. Shooting, injuring, make them scary or how? Try to be more specific.
6)"civilian" --> either civilians or A civilian.
7)"uses" --> "use".
8)" it can lead to the shooting of innocent citizens. " Also try add wery words about that in order to supplement this statement.
9)"for gun" --> "for a gun". Try to use synonyms like "firearms".
10)In conclusion you need to summarize main points of your essays, so write about advantages and disadvantages in short.
11)I am more than agree with Blair Waldorf :)
Good structure <>
Good grammar<>
Excellent vocabulary <>
In a few nations police officers don't carry weapons. Every aware that police are the main force for controlling law and play a crucial part in the preservation of the Lex in countries. It is argued that it is good to have ammunition because of self-defense from law-defying persons, but we need to consider disadvantages as improper use of arsenal to a peaceful citizen. In this essay, I will discuss both benefits and drawbacks of having a gun.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, one of the big advantages of the bearing of arms is the self-protection from a criminal. The world has an enormous number of situations when offenders or persons assault civilians with a weapon and in this case act defenders are necessary to gain ammunition to protect people. it’s calmer for individuals when law authorization organizations have weapons with them and they feel ensured and believe them with their lives. For example, in the 2018 year according to statistics more than 500 thousand armed robbery happened. Moreover, it might be more and from that, we can understand that the police need weapons.
On the other hand, the biggest disadvantage of acquiring a weapon is abusing it for other purposes. The reason is, mental disorders or increased powers that create a sense of control over others and, as a result, confidence in the police is lost. There can be other reasons for depriving of credibility as not the confidence of workers, but the main reason is because of having an arsenal.
In conclusion, considering all written above, authorities should consider the pros and cons and make the right decisions at the expense of their citizens.
1)"Every aware" --> "Everybody awares".
Delete2)"police are" --> "police is".
3)" Lex" --> maybe withut capitalizing it? It is good synonym of the law. Never heard of it, tbh.
4)"law-defying" --> " law defying".
5)"we need to consider disadvantages as improper use" --> "we need to consider disadvantages OF THE improper use".
6)"persons" --> "individuals" or people.
7)"it’s" Capitalize.
8)"in the 2018 year according to statistics more than 500 thousand armed robbery happened." Specify which statistics and in which country. May be also include in which journal. This is because you want to make your work more valid and reliable.
9)"abusing it" --> abusement people?
10)In conclusion, try to revise your main points, so shortly summarize your pros and cons.
Excellent grammar <>
Excellent usage of vocabulary <>
Very good structure <>
I like your essay, keep up with doing a great job!
There are countries where police workers do not use the fire weapons at all. This practice directly influences the way officers fulfill their duty. Nevertheless, there are various benefits and drawbacks of firearm exploitation.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, owning a gun provides self-protection for policeman. The job of police officers is one of the most hazardous and risky profession in the world. By fighting crime, they always put lives in danger. Rarely do people realize the amount of work done by police. Their job includes the cases when using the weapon is necessary, because criminals could point the gun at them and threaten the lives of civils. The prime example is accident, which took place in my hometown. The offender took hostages and wounded them. Fortunately, the police officer who was nearby neutralized the criminal by using his ammunition. If he had not shot him, many people might suffer.
On the other hand, owning the arm is enormous responsibility and misuse of it can hurt innocent people. The police officer who is allowed to carry the weapon should be examined through the psychological tests, because police worker who suffers from mental issues is a threat for society. Officer ought to professionally possess his equipment, because irresponsible use the weapon has awful consequences. For instance, there are plenty of cases when police officer misused his weapon, and wounded innocents. Some police workers suspected the wrong person , and shot him without considering the situation.
In conclusion, the main advantages of carrying the firearm by officers is self-protection and defending the civils, while inappropriate use of it is the major drawback.
Hello, Don_Corleone. You have great ideas in your writing. Here are some of my advice for you:
Delete1) workers do not use fire weapons at all. (1 paragraph; 1 line) --> "the" is unnecessary
2) Firstly, owning a gun provides self-protection for A policeman. (2;1) --> consider adding a preposition
3) one of the most hazardous and risky professionS in the world. (2;2) --> requires a plural noun
4) work done by THE police. (2;3)
5) The prime example is AN accident (2;5)
6) On the other hand, owning the arm is AN enormous (3;1)
7) psychological tests because (3;3)--> remove the coma
8) equipment because irresponsible (3;5) --> coma
9) his weapon and wounded (3;6)--> coma
10) the main advantages of carrying the firearm by officers ARE (4;1) --> advantageS is a plural noun
11) A major drawback. (4;2)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNowadays many countries have different laws regarding the carrying the weapons, including policemen. Not only the governments prohibit them to use the gun, but also police officers cannot bear arms. This situation has both benefits and drawbacks, and this essay will discuss these sides.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, one of the main advantages of not carrying a weapon is that there is no threat of accidental or intentional injury. There are many cases when officers unintentionally injure themselves or their colleagues with gun. In addition, some criminals may steal officers’ weapon. For example, annually, all over the world, many police officers occasionally shoot people. The law of not carrying a gun will prevent many accidents. This is the main reason of legislation such laws.
On the other hand, there is a real possibility of situations where policemen are not able to defend citizens or fight back the offender. Some criminals may decide to shot people in certain public place and in this case it is necessary to liquidate immediately this person, otherwise there will be many victims. So, if police officer does not carry a gun, he will not be able to do this. Moreover, such conditions may affect to the implementation of laws and preservation of peace. We should not exclude the possibility that some people will commit a crime because of the knowing that officers do not have a gun and they cannot stop them. In these cases, the weapon is necessary for policemen.
To conclude, the law of not carrying a gun has both pros and cons, and it may affect the law execution. But, generally, it is more useful for officers to carry a weapon, because the possibility of misuse of a gun is minimum, and they always be able to defend citizens.
ReplyDeleteA gun is a weapon that is used for many purposes, and one of them is self-protection. However, not all policemen have firearms with them; since it might terrify citizens. On the other hand, possessing weapons would be an effective way to prevent breaking rules.
One of the main disadvantages of having guns is that weapons are believed that they disturb the peace of people. Because, if police officers use them inadequately and in the wrong way, it might harm innocent citizens, even worse, cause someone’s death. For instance, back then, Italian policemen used to carry guns, but they have used firearms indecorously and it was such cruelty from them, so now it is not allowed to own them. In these cases, using weapons would be a threat to the peace of the population. Likewise, in some countries, they are forbidden in order to avoid encountering public fears and allowed to use them when it is really necessary.
However, carrying guns might be beneficial for cops, and the main advantage is self-protection. This is because a mob can lose their emotional control, which may lead to aggressive action against these officers. For example, if a culprit attacked police officers, they would use firearms on self-defense purposes. Moreover, rarely do people obey unarmed officers. That is why it is better for them to use ammunitions to control and regulate inner-city rules.
In conclusion, the adequate usage of guns would beneficial both in implementing rules and in the case of threat to the safety of innocent people.
You did a really great job. Honestly, I do not have much to say or correct!
Delete1) Likewise, in some countries, they are forbidden to avoid (2 paragraph; 6 line) --> "in order to" may be wordy
2) That is why THEY SHOULD USE ammunitions to control (3;4) --> simpler alternative
Hello Lucky Dr Robert. Your introduction is a bit too short. You lean towards gun-carrying policies which is good. Try this next time;
Delete• In the introduction, you should first make a general statement connected to the topic – this is perfect for this essay
• Then you should paraphrase the exam question in your own words – you highlighted this in your second sentence which is commendable
• Finally, you need to say what you are going to do in the essay – you missed this out in your third sentence. Although your position is clearly stated, you do not say what the essay is going to be about
Your second and third paragraphs are perfect as they outline the advantages and disadvantages correctly. You have highlighted an example of Italian police which is a positive aspect and will earn you more points. Ensure you get at least one example for each argument. Your conclusion is clear as you have given your opinion and thrown your weight behind the advantages.
You have shown a good command of vocabulary and the flow is good. Your word count is however quite exact, I would have preferred if you aimed at least 270 words. Check out the few grammatical concerns highlighted here below.
Paragraph 1, line 2, you do not need a semi colon. In Paragraph 2, line 2 the word ‘inadequately’ is out of context; I would have preferred ‘carelessly’ or ‘irresponsibly’ or ‘recklessly’. In line 6, ‘population’ can be replaced by ‘the masses’.
You conclusion once again uses the word inadequate in the wrong context.
Overall, it is a good essay. Keep practicing.
Recently, many local governments prefer police to be disarmed, what caused a debate whether law enforcement officers should carry weapons or not. Although being disarmed might reduce the overall violence in society, I think police ought to be fully equipped in order to handle any kind of situation and keep their authority. This essay will discuss both benefits and drawbacks of possessing ammunition using examples to support arguments and demonstrate points.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, carrying a gun might be advantageous to deal with emergencies. Nowadays, criminals are able to easily access and buy weapons on a black market illegally. Therefore, as for police officers, patrolling without a gun may lead to serious consequences, such as hostage taking or even injuring citizens. For example, without guns police cannot deal with armed terrorists, which can be resulted as the death of innocent people. Hence, being without a gun may significantly increase the crime rate. Additionally, the society will lose a trust in the government, which might have an adverse impact on implementing laws and order.
On the contrary, acquiring a gun may notably increase the violence in community. Police carrying guns implicitly deliver the message that guns are required for being safe and people will follow this message and misuse their personal weapons. Consequently, the number of violence situations will peak, that never have people witnessed. For example, individuals will buy legal guns for personal safety, which will increase the crime incidents. The violence level would be low, if it were not for police carrying weapons.
In conclusion, having a gun for police might be beneficial in order to deal with emergency situations and safeguard citizens. However, it will outstandingly increase the level of violence in society.
Good job! You have the facility of the language. The choice and use of words are just in place. The arguments are also good.
DeleteConsider the following suggestions and observations:
1. many local governments prefer police to be disarmed, what caused a debate......will it be possible to change what to that or this.....e.g. that caused a debate or this caused a debate
2. Is this necessary to put this in the essay?
This essay will discuss both benefits and drawbacks of possessing ammunition using examples to support arguments and demonstrate points.
This is the purpose of the teacher why the teacher let you write this essay for you to deliver arguments and demonstrate a point. You do not have to put this here. Instead, develop your introduction having this purpose and make a powerful introduction.
3. lose a trust....just write lose trust
4. rephrase this one: that never have people witnessed so that it will have connection to why the number of violence situations will peak. Or should I say, make this part or sentence simpler so that it can be understood easily.
5. I am not sure of the connection of this statement to the arguments mention on this part because the connection is not clearly established.
....The violence level would be low, if it were not for police carrying weapons....Is this a result of policeman having a gun?
6. I feel that there still a need to add statement in the conclusion to make it powerful.
Thank you very much. congrats in advance.
In certain countries carrying guns by police officers is a legal activity, whereas in some countries it is taboo to have a weapon. Moreover, it is argued that the problem has a number of advantages and disadvantages factors to discuss. Thus, firstly, this essay will discuss benefits such as protection, and, secondly, it will analyze drawbacks like an increased crime rate.
ReplyDeleteOne of the principal pros of concealed carry is defense. This is because police can defend themselves and citizens from crime, assault, and other cases at stack. Not only does carrying a firearm protect a person, but it also may deter the violation from happening. Moreover, this policy would provide rights and responsibility to officers to defend themselves within the law. Take for example, the state of Arizona has no restriction for concealed carry, and its statistics illustrate that the confrontation rate has been decreased in recent decades. As a result, policemen provide safety and make an effort to diminish the crime rate.
On the other hand, one of the drawbacks of police could be carrying a weapon is citizens incredulity. The reason for this is that rarely do people realize about it, but a weapon scares even law-abiding citizens. Moreover, having guns by patrolmen associates with fear among the public. Therefore, firearms are considered to be a threat in peacetime. For instance, police officers may use it in their intentions, which escalates anxiety in society. As a result, incredulity could result in the illegal use of weapons and uncomfortable conditions, that negatively affect the entire department.
In conclusion, I am firmly convinced that police offices can and ought to use firearms, in order to hold the order and diminish confrontation. This is because no matter will officers carry a weapon or not, this policy will not stop criminals from their intentions in the long term.
*..of concealed carry is A defense
Delete* but THE weapon scares..because you use "a weapon" in the previous sentence
*no restriction for THE concealed carry
*THE police officers may use it..
Overall, you have high-structured essay and high range of vocabulary related to the topic. My suggestion for improving your writing skills is to repeat articles (a/an/the) and their correct use
Hello Marco. This is a good piece of writing, well done. I can see a range of vocabulary used, which is quite impressive. The introduction is good and states your position very clearly.
DeleteParagraph 2, line 4 ‘responsibility to’ should read ‘responsibilities for’ since the sentence starts in plural, and also is ‘for’ the officers and not ‘to’ the officers. In line 5 I would have preferred if you used a synonym for ‘concealed carry’ as it appears monotonous. A simple word such as firearms, guns, weapons could do. Sighting an example, the Arizona police, is commendable since it gives evidence of some research work having gone in here, your score will definitely improve.
I paragraph 2, line 1, better meaning of the sentence could be brought out by leaving out ‘could be’ and bringing out plural for weapon(s); police carrying weapons could be…. In line 3; ‘Moreover, having guns by patrolmen associates with fear among the public’ does not add up. I am not sure what you mean here but I suspect you mean …raises fear among the public.
Your conclusion is good although you should try and avoid contradictory statements. Your argument has been brought up clearly at the end but you finish by rubbishing the whole idea of carrying guns, which I believe you support, by saying it does not matter. Do not do this.
Overall, this is a great article and I enjoyed reading it. Keep practicing.
Some governments don’t allow policemen to be armed. I am of the view that ammunition has a couple advantages rather than other methods of sustaining the justice as well as manner in countries because they assist officer to protect himself and citizens, but sometimes it leads to dramatic situation.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned before armed officers could provide better security in dangerous situations when criminals have weapons. In other words, this would even the odds in unfair situations and make officer more patient as well as responsible, since policeman won’t worry for their safety in those situations. According to studies in USA, one of countries that have problems with legitimization of weapons, states that allow to carry weapon have lesser extent of robbery, murder and general crime on 37%, 33% and 18% respectively. The reason is the fact that criminals are concerned about their health if their opponent would have gun hypothetically.
On the other hands, population, who go up against, claims that this legislating would lead to a plenty of corpses and wounded people after accidental situations whereas police officers without guns wouldn’t harshly damage culprits. This argument is partially fair, since in US during the 2017 39,773 people died due to the gunshot wound. This statistic show how dangerous are weapons, but in some situations criminals have weapon that they gained by illegal way they have higher odds to control the situation and different dangerous activities such as abduction of citizens. It is especially actual today when Islamic and other types of terrorism have become organized and more harmful.
In conclusion, I think that police officers should carry weapons to avoid dramatic accidents and do their duty more effectively especially in developing countries where security wasn’t provided in a high quality with new methods and technologies.
Dear Smart Wood, here are some of your mistakes and my suggestions:
Delete1) please do not an apostrophe in writings and write it fully: don’t -> do not, won’t -> will not and etc.
2) "assist officer to protect" The right collocation is "assist (sb) in doing sth"
3) worry for -> worry about
4) "this would even the odds in unfair situations" You forgot to write a verb here
6) On the other hands -> On the other hand
7) population, who -> population, which
8) since in US during the 2017 39,773 people died due to the gunshot wound -> since in 2017 39,773 people died in the US due to the gunshot wound
9) This statistic show -> This statistic shows
There are a lot of things you need to work on, so good luck!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is thought by some people that police officers ought to carry guns with them to maintain law and order as more and more crimes are being committed today. Being armed with a weapon certainly is a measure of safety for the public and for officers themselves but there will also be some drawbacks.
ReplyDeleteOne evident benefit to having a gun is that it would enable a greater protection and power to convict perpetrators. In other words, when a policeman is asked to respond to an emergency they cannot tell how dangerous the situation will turn out to be. Therefore, dangers and unpredictability of their job means that guns are an essential form of protection for both population and officers. Another reason that carrying guns would be advantageous is that it would reduce the number of violent crimes. With more law-abiding police officers possessing weapons, there will be safer society as according to the National Rifle Association (NRA); in 2010 the violent crime rate in the United States fell by an astonishing 48% when all policemen were allowed to be armed with guns.
On the other hand, there are disadvantages of policers carrying a gun all the time on their duty. Firstly, even with the special selection measures and intensive training given to the few firearms officers today, mistakes sometimes occur and innocent people are shot. There is a great probability that mistakes would become much more common and more people would be wounded or killed as a result of officers using a gun in an improper way. Secondly, being armed with a gun would decrease the level of credence of public for policemen; because sometimes police are tend to show aggressive behavior, thus being unable to control themselves. For example, it is identified by scientists that countries where the police do carry guns have worse police-public relations.
In conclusion, while there are minus points to having a gun around police officers, too much would be lost if guns were not possessed by policers. Maintaining peace and safety should be prioritised to ensure a better society.
Hi, Lollipop.
DeleteIn my opinion, your Task Response for this essay is very good. You addressed all parts of the task and gave enough advantages and disadvantages of gun carrying. However, I think your position is not all that clear throughout the essay. What I mean is that if I read the essay without reading the conclusion I would be inclined to think that you were supporting the idea of police officers carrying guns. That’s because you do not state your own opinion anywhere in the essay. Also, the facts you present when you discuss the advantages are clearer than the facts when you discuss disadvantages.
When talking about the Coherence and Cohesion, I am no expert in it. However, I can see that you have used quite a bit of linking structures in your essay. The structure of your essay is excellent. I can see the flow of thought. Nevertheless, I cannot see the clear topic in each paragraph. I think, it will be better to somehow improve the paragraphing in your essay. For example, when you talk about advantages, there are two diverging topics with their own examples and without supporting sentences. Perhaps, you could somehow link these two ideas together to form one main topic in this paragraph.
WELL, that is all for my review. AND do not forget that this is just my own opinion. There is no need to REALLY heed my advice. Just make sure to spend some thought on my ideas. Perhaps you may improve your essay a bit that way!
In the majority of countries, policemen do not possess the firearms with them and sometimes it has an effect on performing law and order. On no account, the benefits and the drawbacks of holding the guns cannot be ignored.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main advantages of possessing ammunition by police officers is self-protection. It is not a secret that the work of policemen’ is extremely dangerous and can damage people’s lives. During the arrest armed and dangerous assailant in order to escape from the law representatives can injure them. Unfortunately, in some cases, this kind of situations lead to the fatal of policemen. For example, in the United Kingdoms since the 1829 year the police officers do not hold the ammunition, so on 18 September 2002 two female policemen Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone were murdered by the burglar during the operation. Therefore, this fatal incident shows that carrying a gun is vital for the law representatives in order to save their lives.
On the flip side, the presence of weapons in the police has own negative sides. One of the main disadvantages is that policeman which owns a gun do not guarantee the safety for the society. That is not news that in the majority of policemen uses the ammunition not on purpose, and in the convenient situations damages the criminals. For example, according to the statistics in USA police officers kill 2-3 assailants during the arrests every day. Thus, these terrible statistics represent that a large number of people are dying because of people who were supposed to protect them.
In conclusion, there are a lot of aspects of using the gun by policemen; it has its own drawbacks and benefits. However, it should be used in the appropriate way and situations in order to protect the society from the crime.
1) This is very good essay with great using of linking words and pretty nice examples.
Delete2) However, I think that is too big, as a result it could take more time in IELTS, hence you do not have time on the Task 1.
3) Moreover, instead of “this kind of situations lead” use “this kind of situations leads” or “these kinds of situations lead”.
"..by police officers is A self-protection". Do not forget about the articles, it will deacrese your mark.
Deletethe first sentence in conclusion "there are a lot of aspects of using the gun by policemen; it has its own drawbacks and benefits" can be changed. instead of using ";" it would be better to use "in spite of/ despite" in order to link two short sentences
"That is not news that in the majority of policemen uses the ammunition ". There are no need of "in" before the majority and "policemen use" instead of "policemen uses", because it is plural form
Overall, I really like your examples, because they are strongly argumentative and providing the statistics
Firearm possession has always been a very controversial issue in many parts of the world and some countries have imposed restrictions on the use of weapons by police department. From my point of view, a gun-carrying can be considered as a powerful method in reducing the crime rate and safety however, irresponsible attitude to the gun ownership may lead to unwelcome consequences and take the lives of innocent people.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, the usage of weapons during the operations is a favorable way of self-protection. In many cases, lawbreakers are not professionals in owning guns as law enforcements and there is a high probability of opening the fire because of the adrenalin and emotional instability, so the possession of firearms will decrease the risk of being killed by criminals. It will be enough to injure the offender in order to defend themselves and catch the felon. Secondly, according to the logic of some delinquents, if the cops do not have access to the ammunition, then they have more freedom to break the laws; therefore the police must prevent such thoughts and the number of offenses. This situation is a bright example that shows the significance of holding hardware in following the laws and working for the good of society.
On the other hand, using guns can be reason for mass shooting after which blameless citizens may die. No one can give an absolute guarantee that guiltless person will not become a victim of someone’s madness. In addition, some people may neglect their privileges and use weapons in an inappropriate way, which can also lead to serious results.
To sum up, depending on the use, weapons can make a huge contribution in maintaining peace in society, but the government should still follow restrictions and gun control in order to avoid casualties.
Dear Freya, you have really done a good job. I did not notice any grammar mistakes and your vocabulary is pretty good. Here are the only suggestions I have for you:
Delete1) pay attention to the punctuation when you use linking words (however, therefore)
2) it would be better if you wrote more in the 3rd paragraph in order to make the advantages and disadvantages equal
Overall, it was a pleasure to read your work. Keep going.
Hello Freya. A very good introduction, you have stated your position very clearly. This is commendable. You have also used a range of vocabulary showing your good command of the language. In paragraph 1, line 3, leave out the article ‘a’, since gun-carrying (policemen) is plural as used in this sentence. Same line: … reducing crime rate and safety. Do you mean that safety is reduced, as well as crime rate? These two should be separated as they contradict each other. Promoting safety rather than reducing it would do better with reducing crime rate.
DeleteParagraph two brings out your argument very strongly and again, this is laudable. Paragraph 3 also explains the reverse argument very well and you conclude by saying that it will actually depend on how the state enforces the whole process.
This is a good essay but I would like you to do a little research and cite specific examples to support your reasons. This is what the question demands. However, your English level is superb. Overall, this is an article well thought of and very well done. Keep practicing
It is considered that the main commitments of police department are to maintain law and to keep protection of a single citizen. Thus, several countries do not implement a policy allowing police personal to carry guns in order to avoid possible accidents due to officer’s ammunition. The advantages are that carrying gun is an essential form of protection due to the fact that policemen’s job is quite danger and unpredictable, additionally, it is effective in rivalry against criminals. However, due to the loss of emotional control police officer could shoot unarmed and innocent people.
ReplyDeleteOne of the crucial benefits of carrying ammunition is the domination over the criminals. With increasing crimes and illegal weapons out there, it is important for police to have arms as well. Criminals are defined as people who break the law and they are usually armed. If police officers have to combat criminals, they can only do so effectively with weapons. In particular, take the horrific murders of policewomen Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes. They were called to the scene of their fatal shooting on response to a suspected burglary. They would have never of guessed that a former mobster, the cold physco Dale Creagen, had lured them into a trap. Both women were immediately killed with a grenade and handgun. If those two unfortunate women had been allowed to carry a gun, not as special unit like a S.W.A.T team but as normal policewomen, then they may still be alive.
One the other hand, it will be dangerous to allow to acquire a firearm from the government due to the possibility of making an accident and a damage to innocent citizen. Despite the fact that cops have years of shooting experience and are the professionals at it, it does not guaranteed that in particular situation they could keep mental stability and solve the issue through effective way. For instance, according to a report published in the New York Times in 2017, a police officer who suffered from mental illness called Schizophrenia, killed all his family members with his official ammunition because he suspected them to be aliens. Thus, it should be considered before permitting a license for a gun.
To sum up, carrying guns for police officers is the effective way in neutralizing criminal armed offenders and is the absolute option for high protection. However, there should be no doubt that possessing an ammunition should be properly considered because of policemen’s irresponsibility of firearm usage.
Hi!
Delete1)Please work on the articles:
THE police, the protection, a gun, an effective way, a particular situation and so on.
2) it is quite dangerOUS
3) police officerS, innocent citizenS
4) ...is an effective way OF neutralizing criminal...
5) just ammunition (without an article), damage
Hello Mad Hawk. This is a very good essay. Your introduction is quite impressive since you have highlighted some of the pros and cons of the argument. You also highlight real life examples showing that you have done some research towards the topic. This is commendable and will definitely earn you some points. However, look out for the few grammatical errors highlighted here below.
DeleteParagraph 1 line 2, ‘keep protection of a single citizen’ should read ‘keep protection of every single citizen’. Line 3, police personal should read police persons. Line 5, ‘quite danger’ should either be quite dangerous or quite ‘a’ danger. Last line in the introductory paragraph should have officer(s), not singular.
Paragraph 2, line 6; leave out ‘of’ so that the phrase reads ‘they would have never guessed’. Towards the end of this paragraph, you have used an acronym, SWAT, which the reader may not know what it stands for. It is always recommended that you write the full meaning and the acronym in brackets when it appears for the first time in your essay.
Paragraph 3; line 1, ‘On’ not ‘One’. In the same line, you also left out the subject, ‘to allow to acquire’ should read ‘to allow the police to acquire’
In the conclusion, line 3; ‘possessing an ammunition’ you should leave out the article ‘an’ since the noun ammunition can be countable or uncountable.
Your conclusion is superb as you clearly define you position. This is a very good piece, you have used a range of vocabulary and your word count and flow are fine. Well done, keep practicing.
The governments of some countries prohibit the use of guns by law enforcement officials. For example, in England such rules have been in force since 2012. In my opinion, such a rule may affect the functionality of the police.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, it will be right if ordinary people and police officers have a trusting relationship. A policeman without gun means less danger. In such circumstances, people will feel more comfortable and freely communicate with the police. And in some cases, it can be simply dangerous. Because not all policemen have stable emotional health, and this can lead to unwanted killings or injuries of criminals.
On the other hand, carrying weapons by the police is a guarantee of their safety, as they work with offenders. And they can be completely different, from unbalanced alcoholics to inadequate killers. And in some situations, weapons can save the lives of police officers. Dangerous criminals can kill or injure any person, they may be an innocent resident or a police officer himself.
To summarize, to my mind, the carrying of weapons by police should be allowed, but strictly controlled. And it should be allowed only during working hours to avoid unnecessary problems. And for any shot, they must have permission or a good reason.
Since the crime rate has become a high, governments and authorities employ harsh measures to tackle problems arose of it. One of the options is for the officers to carry a weapon that was issued to them. However, even though it is considered as a good way to maintain order and law, it has some threats. In this essay, I will discuss both pros and cons of having a gun.
ReplyDeleteLet's begin by looking at the advantages of carrying a gun. One of the positives of it is that it shows would-be criminals a power that guardians have. Then, it may instil a sense of fear in those people. As a result, preventative measures such as giving a gun to policemen can reduce offending behaviour overall. Secondly, the effectiveness of arresting inmates can significantly increase. It means the people who committed a crime will be caught quickly and will have no chances to escape because guns pose a danger for them. In the end, officers with guns may cut the number of escaped prisoners.
Turning to the other side of the argument, the purposes police officers should be civilian and peaceful. If they use a gun continuously, they will start to think that is only one way to fight crime. However, in the case of petty crimes, guns have not to be addressed as a solution. So, the manner how law and order implemented has to not arise more conflicts. Another issue is that guns that carried by policemen can be delivered to the wrong hands. This danger exists and for instance, there are a lot of accidents caused by the negligence and recklessness of people who carry a gun.
All things considered, guns can be both reduce crime or arise another one. Law authorities need to weigh up the pros and cons of giving a gun to policemen. I believe the benefits in terms of trying to stop possible future crime eventually outweigh any negatives.
Hello, my friend! You did realy a good job!
Delete1) has become high
2) problems arose FROM it (not of)
3)instil -> instill
4) behavior, not behaviour
5) the purposes OF police officers
6) ...that guns carried by policeman (without that)
In any national police force, there is no question that maintaining law and order plays a key role. Although the care of guns has many advantages, the inconveniences of their owning should also be considered. This essay addresses both the advantages and the disadvantages of a firearm and offers relevant examples where possible.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, self-protection is one of the key advantages of possessing weapons by the police. The explanation is that a crowd can lose its moral control, which can lead to assaulting these officers. For example, in 2011 there was a terrorist attack in the city of Taraz. An armed criminal began to shoot at people, only policemen with weapons could eliminate him, the hero's name was Gaziz Baitasov.
On the other hand, any corrupt officer possessing guns can exploit an innocent person. Consequently, people will start losing confidence in the government, leading to an unbalanced country. The explanation is that in every human, corruption and mental illness produces a pseudo mind of supreme power and control over everybody's life. For instance, in 2019, a military man in the Turkestan region decided to carry out a terrorist attack, for this he took more than 30 weapons using people's trust. But fortunately, he was eliminated before the attack.
Finally, although owning a gun is the main advantage for self-defense, the authorities should always bear in mind the drawback of misuse. Innocent people may suffer due to improper use of weapons, but without the weapons, the police themselves will also be victims.
Hello!
Delete1) of their OWN
2) just disadvantages, without THE
3) You could've changed "there is no question that maintaining" to just "no question maintaining"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are strict anti-gun policies in some parts of the world, which applies not only to civilians, but also to the police. However, there are no doubts that to maintain the law, ammunition can play a crucial role in some extremely dangerous situations. This essay will discuss both benefits and drawbacks of law enforcement carrying a weapon.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main advantages of possessing ammunition by police is the empowerment of the officer. A weapon in the right hands is a guarantee of the safety and protection of the locals. For instance, there is no way to neutralise and arrest an armed criminal in a peaceful means. The absence of the ammunition jeopardizes the security of citizens and policemen, as well.
On the other hand, one of the important disadvantages of acquiring a gun is that there is always are threatening the prospect of inappropriate usage of it. The presence of the weapon can lead to a pseudo-sense of supreme power and control on anyone’s life. For example, it can fall into the hands of the family members or friends who have an access to personal belongings of the police officer. In 2007, in Virginia, a teenager started a firefight using a gun stoled from his father working at the police which led to fatal results. Possessing ammunition demands a person’s intellectual development, high responsibility, and personality to behave appropriately.
In conclusion, the weapon is an indispensable instrument of protection and law maintenance; however, in order to have a right to use it, law enforcement must be representative of the responsible attitude.
Many countries today are grappling with the best ways to curb rising crime rates and some believe that carrying guns by police officers is an effective method of fighting crime. There is no doubt that armed police are the keys to peace but there are some disadvantages.
ReplyDeleteThe positive points include greater protection and ability to prevent unlawful actions.In other words, it is impossible to assess the danger of emergency situations accurately.Therefore, guns are crucial to protect the public population and police officers. Another positive aspect is carrying guns are favourable to reduce number of grave offences such as murder or hostage-taking. According to the chief of the Michigan police department if police officers did not carry firearms there would be three times more victims among the police officers and innocent citizens.
The negative points include misses and mistakes which can lead to innocent victims. In some countries or regions police officers are insufficiently trained but even trained officers can also make mistakes.Unquestionably, armed police officers discourage criminality in all its forms. However, there were events when criminals attacked police officers in order to take away weapons and use it in felonious acts.Another disadvantage is increasing distrust of the public toward police. Armed police officers would change the power dynamic between the public and the police. British police officers think that it is essential to keep the right balance to have good relationships with the public. There examples of excessive uses of force such as institutional racism and aggression correspondingly wrongdoers.
In conclusion, admitted drawbacks of firearms, deterring effect of guns prevents most crime. In this matter maintaining the peace and security of police and civilians should be the main task of any government.
288 words
Hello, linq. This is an amazing piece of writing. Here are some of my advice for you:
Delete1) protection and THE ability to (2 paragraph; 1 line)
2) the danger of emergencies accurately (2; 2) --> "emergency situations" creates a tautology
3) favourable to reduce THE number (2;4)
4) In some countries or regions, police officers (3;2) --> consider adding a coma
5) take away weapons and use THEM in felonious acts (3;5)
Hello Linq. The introduction is good but you need to bring out the discussion topic clearly and also state what you are going to do in the essay. The opening statement is superb and gives a general comment about the essay. The second sentence should however analyse the given question prompt. This is ‘In some countries police officers do not carry guns. How does this affect the manner they implement law and order?’ Here, there are two sides of the same coin in enforcing law and order, which are, police carrying guns or not carrying guns. After outlining this, you should have a third line in your introductory paragraph where you state your opinion about the theme of the essay.
DeleteIn paragraph 2, you have highlighted advantages of carrying a gun and an example of Michigan police which is a positive aspect and will earn you more points. Ensure you get at least one example for each argument.
In paragraph 3, you have given quite a number of disadvantages of carrying guns which seem to go in line with your conclusion. This is commendable. You however do not have a credible example here.
Your essay has taken into consideration task response very well. Coherence and Cohesion is good except for the introduction (check comments above). Your lexical resource is satisfactory and the flow is good meaning the grammatical range and accuracy is up to the mark.
Remember to leave space after a full stop; this is a common mistake in your essay.
Overall, this piece of work is well structured and the flow of ideas is remarkable. Keep practicing. I enjoyed reading the article.
Nowadays, there is no uncertainty that to keep up lawfulness in any country police office assumes a critical job in it. While, there are different focal points of keeping an ammo, we ought to likewise consider the drawbacks of having those. In this paper, we will examine the two advantages and disadvantages of having a firearm, giving applicable models any place essential.
ReplyDeleteRight off the bat, one of the fundamental points of interest of having an ammo by police workforce is self-assurance. This is on the grounds that, a horse can lose their enthusiastic control, which may prompt a forceful activity against these officials. For instance, as far as I can tell, being a columnist, I saw a terrible clash between government officials and a group, which finished in a huge gore with the end goal of self-preservation. Conversely, arms possessing any degenerate official can be abused against a guiltless individual. Therefore, individuals started to lose trust in the administration, in this manner prompting an agitated country.
Then again, one of the significant burdens of obtaining a weapon is abusing it at whatever point wanted. The explanation is, the debasement and mental precariousness in any individual, which makes a pseudo-feeling of incomparable force and control on anybody's life. For example, as indicated by a report distributed in the New York Times in 2017, a cop who experienced psychological maladjustment called Schizophrenia, killed all his relatives with his official combat hardware since he speculated them to be outsiders. As a result, this barbaric episode featured numerous prospects that ought to be considered by any organization before allowing a permit for the piece. Along these lines, it relies upon an individual's scholarly turn of events and character to carry on suitably while having an ammo.
In conclusion, while the most pertinent favourable position of having a firearm is for self-protection, the weakness of abusing it ought to likewise be considered by the specialists.
Despite policemen are the figures, who are responsible for the maintaining of the rule in the country, somewhere they are not allowed to own any type of a weapon. These restrictions have benefits as well as drawbacks, related to the security of citizens. To my mind, the policemen should be provided by an ammunition in order to keep the peace within the nation, but not to kill people.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the gun guarantees the protection of very police officers and other residents. Offender may be various and nobody can predict their plans, so the persons, who support the order, should be prepared to any attacks. For example, the criminal, who is pillaging the bank, may not murder only he workers of the bank, but also people in the street and even police officers. Furthermore, the weapon will also act as a repellent from offenders and it is helpful in supporting the order. If the policemen carried a gun, the criminals would be afraid of the violation of the rules and the measures of the policemen. Otherwise, it would be simple to violate the order and turn to crime.
Turning to the back side of an argument, these guns may also be dangerous to people. In the stressful situations, the police officer may accidentally murder the person or somebody from his family, naming the children and one, who suffer from mental disorders, may take the weapon and injure others. Unfortunately, sometimes, it happens in the world and innocent civilians suffer due to the irresponsibility of others.
To conclude, the weapon is necessary to policeman for protection and maintaining the order in the country. However, the persons, who have right to own a gun, ought to be enormously careful.
Hi Lazy potato. Your introduction is powerful. It has all the aspects required in introducing an essay; kudos. Throughout the essay, your task response is accurate, your ideas are coherent, in that there is a logical flow of ideas, your lexical resource needs a little more of working on and your grammatical range and accuracy is fairly good. Try to use words within the correct context.
DeleteYou however have a few grammatical errors which are highlighted below.
Paragraph 1, line; Despite policemen ‘being’…, not ‘are the’…., then leave out the coma. Same line leave out the article ‘the’ before maintaining … or use that article but leave out the same article ‘the’ before rule, use rules (plural). In line 2, ‘somewhere’ is used out of context, use ‘somehow’ instead or ‘one way or another’ or ‘in some way’
Paragraph 2, line 1; add the article ‘the’ before ‘very police’. Use plural for ‘offender(s)’, and in the given tense, you could also say offenders may be ‘varied’ instead of ‘various’. Get some examples to support your ideas here.
Paragraph 3 is well structured but you need to give credible examples for both sides of the argument to earn more points. Your conclusion is great, and in line with your opinion, having shown that advantages are more than the disadvantages.
Overall, this is a good essay. I have seen a lot of improvement from your last piece. Keep practicing. I enjoyed reading your article, well done.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete