Task 18 Version 2 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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGun-carrying is prohibited for policemen in some countries because having a weapon is associated with constant risk for police officers and fear among society. For some reason, the firearm ban could be useful, because people 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 firearms to intimidate them. For example, most offenders are calm when detained, but there are situations where resistance is observed. A police officer with a gun can easily defend himself, while for the unarmed one it can be worth great risks.
Besides, gun-carrying positively affects the mental condition of police officers. Their job is continuously connected to various dangers. Hence in this kind of case, the firearm could play a significant role 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 society is increasingly moving in the direction of refusing to carry and use firearms. A police officer, who has used a firearm, even if for own protection, may become a victim of public censure. Afterward, it could negatively affect the entire police department. For example, 569 people have been killed by US police in 2016, according to The Guardian’s count.
In conclusion, gun-carrying is still an unsolved issue. Its use is directly related to the positive and negative consequences. Overall, everything depends on a person’s intellectual development and personality to behave appropriately while possessing ammunition.
Some of the countries did not implement a policy which allows police officers to carry guns. In my opinion, the way the police keep track of justice is less severe compared to if it would have firearms. The advantages of carrying a gun are the strengthened control over law violation among the citizens and the high 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 criminals by looking at the gunned police officers would have a high chance to give up or not to commit the crime. 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 the majority of 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. Because of this, a decent amount of innocent people and kids could be shot during the toughened fight between police and criminals. One of the examples is the incident of mass shootings in the US. Despite the strong control of police officers, there are a lot of mass shootings in schools and between neighborhoods.
Overall, the usage of guns in neutralizing crimes could benefit the society by lowering amount of small criminals and having 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.
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.
In a few nations police officers don't carry weapons. Everybody awares that police is 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 the disadvantages of the 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 individuals assault civilians with a weapon and in this case act defenders are necessary to gain ammunition to protect people. It is 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 inside the USA 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 abusement people 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. The main cons of having ammunition are abusing it and the main benefit is protection from a criminal.
don't must be do not
Deleteeverybody is aware of
Make two sentences here "Everybody awares that police is the main force for controlling law and play a crucial part in the preservation of the lex in countries"
because of self-defense- because of means из-за, do you want to say in order to protect themselves and being able to protect others?
" I will discuss both benefits and drawbacks of having a gun" by whom?
Firstly, one of the big advantages- use here one of them, this is meaningless
The same problem "offenders or individuals assault civilians" It seems that you are writing without understanding the words yo are using
"calmer for individuals" What do you mean here?
"believe them with their lives." not clear, what do you mean? Your word choise is not correct
inside the USA- in the USA
of acquiring a weapon is abusement people for other purposes.- Correct grammar and word order
The reason is, mental disorders- correct the linking word
I advise you to copy model essays, translate them into your own language, work on the grammar structures you encounter there and finally work on collocations. Your writing is not clear to the reader. It looks like a collection of words that you yourself employing without understanding.
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 a 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 leads 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 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.
possess the firearms with them- not correct collocation
Deletesometimes it has an effect on- what effect? Positive? adverse?
work of policemen’- why did you put '?
It is not a secret that the work of policemen’ is extremely dangerous and can damage people’s lives.- This sentence does not make any sense. Rewrite it correctly.
During the arrest armed and dangerous assailant in order to escape from the law representatives can injure them.- reconsider this
fatal of policemen.- not correct collocation
police has own negative sides.- not correct word choice
the safety for the society- wrong preposition
in USA- in the USA
kill 2-3 assailants- two to three
I advise you to copy model essays, translate them into your own language, work on the grammar structures you encounter there and finally work on collocations. Your writing is not clear to the reader because of the grammar mistakes and wrong collocations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
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.
ReplyDeleteOne 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 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 they should 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.
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, the first line.
• 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.
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 the 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 favourable way of self-protection. In many cases, lawbreakers are not professionals in owning guns as law enforcement 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 offences. 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 the reason for mass shooting after which blameless citizens may die. No one can give an absolute guarantee that a 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.
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 the concealed carry is a 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 the 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, the 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.
Annually, the crime rate is becoming higher and higher, and they need different approaches. In this situation, some governments do not allow police officers to carry any firearms. Such rules will undoubtedly affect to the execution of the laws and has both benefits and drawbacks that need to be disclosed.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, we need to realize that the police officers face danger every day. Moreover, the level of the danger is different. They might deal with thieves or, equally, they might face a murderer. One of the distinct advantages of carrying a gun is that officers can defend themselves or citizens from various danger. For example, in the case of terrorism, the ability to immediately liquidate the criminal will save many lives, and the gun will obviously be useful. In addition, in some countries, where a huge number of people carry weapon, the possibility of gun misuse is higher and guns are required for the officers.
On the other hand, there are some disadvantages, too. It is not wise to give a gun to an inexperienced officer and think that there will not be any unwanted incidents. There were many situations, when beginner officers misused a gun, as well. They might think that there is a danger, even if it is not. Such cases might occur anytime and anywhere, so there will be victims. Secondly, there is no total guarantee that officers, who have a gun, will not become a criminal and use the gun for own purposes. They might intentionally commit a crime or, even worse, kill somebody. Such situations are equally risky.
To conclude, this theme of gun carrying has both advantages and disadvantages. Every government makes own choice. Personally, I think that the carrying a gun for police officers is needed and with proper supervision, it will be beneficial for the society.
Nowadays, the 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 policy.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main advantages of the wholesale rejection gun’s carrying for the police is proximity to the citizens. More countries use the law enforcers as depressing power in order to stop rallies and control people. However, currently, Europe countries did not need to force their citizens to do something, because authority should make everything to create comfortable conditions for the nation.
One of the main disadvantages of the disarmament of police is 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. For example, in third world countries, such as Venezuela, we could observe a high application of ammunition among offenders, hence police officers in order to resist needed to use gun.
In conclusion, this action is suitable to the developed nations, because they have a low rate of firearm crime as well as high life comfortability level. Nevertheless, the developing countries cannot include this practice, because it complicates already hard patrolmen’s life.
In some 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.
ReplyDeleteIn 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 endangering citizens’ 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. In addition, the effect, which armed police will have on yet-to-become crime doers, will prevent most 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 unsound 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.
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 themselves and 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. In addition, having weapons, police officers accelerate the process of catching the gunman. 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, carrying guns has its own pros and cons. However, in my opinion, in spite of the risks of arms proliferation, guns are necessary for police officers in order to defend people and keep order.
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. A police worker 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 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 person negotiates witness with the weapon, the witness 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.
Police department always plays a crucial role in 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 a policeman is to protect themselves 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, a 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 civilians. Therefore, if police uses 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 a 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.