Self Defence With Weapons
What would you do if you had the sense that you were facing a danger of being hurt or killed? Would you fight back to save your own life, or stay still for nothing as an innocent victim? Of late years, self-defence has been a topical issue, especially about the right of owning weapons. Undoubtedly, every human being has the right to protect oneself; however, would it be a sound reason to carry a weapon? This is arguable.
It is believed that people should have the right to carry a weapon for self-defence whenever there is a life-threatening danger. Some people suggest that it is because everyone has the right to protect their own life, and humans should share the same rights in life-protecting issues. However, rights inevitably come along with responsibilities. Responsibilities are what were written as in laws, or are the rules to distinguish what is moral or not (BBC, 2015). The more rights you enjoy, the more responsibilities you have. This is one of the elements that keeps the society balanced and on track. If every citizen is given the right to own a weapon for self-defence, who can assure the public that every citizen is going to take the corresponding responsibilities? Who could ensure that their weapons are going to be used if and only if there is a grievous incident? What is more, rights are something that either are inborn, or are given by the law to the citizens (BBC, 2015). Yet, not everyone has considered how rights are determined as rights. As Lloyd (2008) mentioned, rights are often decided by the beholders. People tend to unintentionally ignore what is in fact happening to the people involved, and therefore to judge whether something is right or not. As a result, we should first step back and take a look at the pros and cons of the implementation of legalizing weapons for self-defence to different walks of life. Therefore, at this moment, it is not reasonable for every citizen to carry a weapon for self-defence.
Secondly, some people suggest that
It is believed that people should have the right to carry a weapon for self-defence whenever there is a life-threatening danger. Some people suggest that it is because everyone has the right to protect their own life, and humans should share the same rights in life-protecting issues. However, rights inevitably come along with responsibilities. Responsibilities are what were written as in laws, or are the rules to distinguish what is moral or not (BBC, 2015). The more rights you enjoy, the more responsibilities you have. This is one of the elements that keeps the society balanced and on track. If every citizen is given the right to own a weapon for self-defence, who can assure the public that every citizen is going to take the corresponding responsibilities? Who could ensure that their weapons are going to be used if and only if there is a grievous incident? What is more, rights are something that either are inborn, or are given by the law to the citizens (BBC, 2015). Yet, not everyone has considered how rights are determined as rights. As Lloyd (2008) mentioned, rights are often decided by the beholders. People tend to unintentionally ignore what is in fact happening to the people involved, and therefore to judge whether something is right or not. As a result, we should first step back and take a look at the pros and cons of the implementation of legalizing weapons for self-defence to different walks of life. Therefore, at this moment, it is not reasonable for every citizen to carry a weapon for self-defence.
Secondly, some people suggest that