Having A Gun Very often in life I would find myself strongly disagreeing and upholdingthe totally opposite point of view about the actions and behavior of those,whose deeds seemed to me rather disadvantageous and harmful to the entirecommunity or society. These kind of actions were mostly coming from governmentauthorities, and quite obviously, there was not much that could have been donein order to refute or override them. Therefore, not only once, the idea ofhaving adequate power and authority to ban these kind of pernicious practices,would appeal to me.
For the purpose of decreasing the crime rate, that was the top concern ofthe Ukrainian citizen, in 1994, some misguided politicians in government adoptedthe legislation repealing the previous amendment and thus, abolishing theconstitutional right to own the handguns. Banning the sale of firearms seems tome a most malicious and reckless deed, that instead of safeguarding andprotecting, endangers more the entire society. The Government justified this act by saying that it would protect theinnocent citizens. But it failed to even entertain the notion that the enactmentof this law would come to protect the right of those who violate the rights ofothers.
It has never occurred to authorities that vicious criminals, in spite ofthis legislation, will still manage somehow to get the firearms. Innocent people, however, will suffer, because they will be less likelyto obtain handguns in order to protect themselves and their families. Therefore,it would not be hard to imagine the carnage of the citizens, should there not beany guns in their homes. The criminals would walk in at any time they desired,they would take whatever they wanted, rape whom they wanted, and shoot whoeverwould resist.
The Government defended the enactment of this law by declaring thatpeople could not be secure as long as there would be handguns around; they couldnot be secure when three million people in the country had shotguns stuck in theglove compartment of their cars, bedside drawers, pockets and kitchen cabinets. But could they be secure if some criminal would try to take away somebody’s carunder the threat, rob and rape somebody in the street or try to burglarizesomebody’s home, knowing that they would not have any guns to protectthemselves? The prompt and correct answer is “NO”. The government was established to insure that none of our rights wouldbe violated or taken away. It seems to me that the government, by infringing theright of people to keep and bear arms, has failed to provide its citizens withprivilege of safety in their homes or the right to be able to walk freely incities and towns. If I had enough authority and power to change the laws, Iwould definitely attract and repeal this legislation, that seems to be ratherdangerous than protective.
By doing so, I would bring safety, security andfreedom to the entire society, because my point is that criminals would obtainthe shotgun anyway, so why should not normal people have a chance to protectthemselves by having a little insurance under their bed in the form of a gun.
