IELTS Essay Topics with sample answer.
IELTS Essay # 582 - Individuals should not be allowed to carry guns
- Last Updated: Sunday, 09 July 2023 14:35
- Written by IELTS Mentor
- Hits: 77489
IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay:
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Write about the following topic:
Individuals should not be allowed to carry guns as it increases crime and violence in society.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
Model Answer 1: [Agreement]
The issue of gun ownership and its impact on crime and violence in society has sparked heated debates. Some opine that individuals should not be allowed to carry guns, as it contributes to an increase in crime rates and violence. In this essay, I will present arguments in support of this view and explain why I agree that individuals should not be permitted to carry firearms.
One of the main reasons why individuals should not be allowed to carry guns is the potential for increased crime rates. Studies have shown a correlation between gun ownership and violent crimes. When guns are easily accessible, there is a higher likelihood of impulsive acts of violence and crimes of passion. For example, countries with stricter gun control laws tend to have lower rates of firearm-related homicides. In Australia, after the implementation of stricter gun control measures following a mass shooting incident in 1996, firearm-related deaths significantly declined.
Allowing individuals to carry guns also poses risks to public safety. In situations of heated arguments or conflicts, the presence of firearms escalates the potential for violence. Even in cases of self-defence, the presence of a gun can lead to unintended consequences and the escalation of a situation. For instance, studies have found that individuals with firearms are more likely to experience accidental shootings or have their own weapons used against them. By restricting gun ownership, we can create a safer environment for everyone and reduce the risk of tragic incidents caused by impulsive actions or accidents involving firearms.
In conclusion, I strongly agree with the view that individuals should not be allowed to carry guns, as it contributes to increased crime rates and poses risks to public safety. Stricter gun control measures have been proven effective in reducing firearm-related violence in various countries.
Model Answer 2: [Disagreement]
Gun ownership and its effect on crime and violence in society is a complex and controversial topic. While some argue that individuals should not be allowed to carry guns due to concerns about increased crime rates and violence, I take a different stance and believe that responsible gun ownership can contribute to personal safety and deter criminal activities.
One of the primary reasons why individuals should be allowed to carry firearms is the ability to defend themselves and ensure personal safety. In situations where law enforcement may not be readily available, having a firearm can provide a means of protection against potential threats. For instance, in cases of home invasions or assaults, the presence of a firearm can serve as a deterrent, potentially preventing harm or even loss of life. Responsible gun ownership empowers individuals to take responsibility for their own safety and the protection of their loved ones.
Allowing individuals to carry firearms can also act as a deterrent to criminal activities. The knowledge that potential victims might be armed can make criminals think twice before engaging in acts of violence or robbery. Research has shown that areas with higher rates of concealed carry permits have witnessed a decrease in violent crime rates. In states where concealed carry laws are more lenient, such as Texas, there has been evidence of a decrease in crime rates, suggesting that responsible gun ownership can contribute to a safer society.
In conclusion, I believe that responsible gun ownership, supported by proper training and regulations, can contribute to personal safety and act as a deterrent to criminal activities. It is crucial to recognize the potential benefits of responsible gun ownership and work towards creating a society where individuals can exercise their rights while upholding the principles of safety and responsibility.
Sample Answer 3: [Agree]
In many countries, laws are flexible to let citizens carry firearms while in many others, it is quite difficult to get a license, even for a notable person, to possess and carry a gun. It is often said that when a state or country allows its citizens to carry weapons, crime and violence increase and therefore individuals should not be allowed to carry firearms. I quite agree with this statement and this essay attempts to explain why.
First, guns are meant to shoot someone either to wound or kill that person even in instances of self-defence. Thus the very objective of a gun is to kill a person and thus this deathly weapon can only increase crime and violence in society. To understand how the mass ownership of guns can increase the violence in a country we can compare a country like the USA, where carrying a gun is allowed, with a country like Japan, where it is restricted. In 2018, when the United States experienced over 24,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 21 and this is quite an alarming comparison that reveals how firearms ownership by mass people can increase violence in a country.
Moreover, research indicates that owning and carrying a gun can psychologically affect our behaviours and thus people often commit crimes only because they have guns with them. Thus letting people carry guns puts others' lives at risk rather than ensuring safety for all. Accidental, psychological, and family violence gunshot wounds and deaths are quite high in countries where people can carry guns with them, and the only way to reduce such crime rates is not allowing people to own and carry guns on their wish.
In conclusion, allowing people to carry guns actually increases crimes, violence and casualties rather than ensuring public safety. Thus there is no doubt that people in a country should not be allowed to carry firearms and restricting it would significantly decrease crime and violence.
First and foremost, guns are weapons designed to kill or wounded people, so it is undeniable that an increase in the rate of arms in the population will lead to a similar trend in crime rates. The allowance of citizens to have handguns is equivalent to allowing criminals easy access to weapons themselves, resulting in growing danger for the public. For instance, a comparison between the two countries of the USA and Japan has demonstrated the detrimental effects of gun ownership on a national scale, with considerable differences in various data, such as the death rates of officers during missions or the incredibly alarming homicidal incidents: 18000 and 14, showing the hazardous impact of armed offenders that the legislation has accidentally abetted.
Additionally, the psychological influence exerted upon a weaponized individual is irrefutable due to the weight of the damage a gun can bring. In combination with the emotional aspect of humans and the intense atmosphere of the situation, it cannot be avoided that accidental actions may happen. And even in the most reasonable circumstances and sensible individuals, faulty errors might pop up, both in the human and equipment department. Allowing the free acquisition of firearms will hurt society as it will result in an upturn in the probability of such incidental perpetrations, as indicated by various heartwrenching incidents reported on the media.
In conclusion, while persuasion for the legalization of unprohibited weapon access has a myriad of justifications, the negative consequences it can have on people are indisputable. Therefore the formalisation of such regulation should be objected to at all causes.