Some people believe that if a police officer carries guns, it can encourage a higher level of violence. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some consider that a police officer carrying guns would only exacerbate a vicious cycle of violence, while others seem to disagree. In the following essay, the author absolutely agrees with the presumption that carrying guns by police officers results in a higher extent of violence and homicide.
On a surface, it seems reasonable that a police officer should carry a gun to be able to protect individuals from violent criminals. Otherwise, it is deemed that if a police officer were unable to use arms when necessary, then they would not be able to prevent a serious tragedy. Furthermore, police officers carry arms for historical reasons to be able to enforce law and order.
However, the lines between situations that justify the use of guns remain blurred, and in the end, every police officer makes a fatal decision on their own. There are many cases (for instance, Breona Taylor) when police officers committed grave mistakes that caused a loss of lives of innocent civilians. With this in view, the first argument against the use of guns by the police rests on the assumption that unjustified use of guns happens often and this results in killings of innocent civilians.
The second argument analyzes the role of the police institution itself and its initial aims. In other words, in some severe cases, civilians cannot seek protection from the police. Quite the reverse is fair: civilians need protection from the police, which makes the role of the police institution questionable in a democratic society. Recent events in the USA and some other countries across the globe suggest that using guns only exacerbates a cycle of violence, and reinforces hostile boundaries between the police on the one side and civilians on the other.
In conclusion, the author agrees with the statement that a police officer carrying guns often poses a danger and reinforces the cycle of violence.
Примечания:
Тема очень противоречивая, особенно на фоне мировых событий. Если выбрать вторую точку зрения и не согласиться с утверждением, то можно соскользнуть совсем не туда и не вынырнуть из образа кровавого тирана, маленького грязного любителя оружия и насилия.
Любой аргумент о «крайней необходимости» тут же разобьется аргументом о том, что не существует четких критериев необходимости применения оружия. Последние события (убийство Бреоны Тэйлор, Джордж Флойд) только подтверждают это.
Сочинения IELTS оцениваются строго по критериям, и утверждается, что экзаменуемому не будут снижать баллы за высказывание «непопулярного» мнения.
Но нужно иметь в виду, что большинство университетов Европы и академическая система в целом выстроена на основе идей гуманизма, свободолюбия и новаторских идей. Защита консервативных ценностей и повторение застаревших истин должны обязательно сопровождаться солидными аргументами, но, как правило, на то это и устаревшие забитые фразы.