Some people believe that if a police force carries guns, this encourages higher level of violence in that society. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

[Le_Khoi]

Please evaluate my essay and give some feedback <3

The proliferation of crime is one of the most alarming issues that garners much public attention. While some people argue that the police force should be entitled to use firearms for the maintenance of peace, others believe it will act as a stimulant rather than a deterrent. This essay will analyze both sides of the problem and state my viewpoint.
On the one hand, police possession of guns undeniably has many benefits with regard to protecting the citizens and the police themselves from criminal threats. Firstly, as emergencies can occur any time, policemen should be armed with firearms to become more proactive to control the situation. Due to the fact that gun is commonly known to be the symbol of authority, gun ownership allows the police to overpower offenders using primitive weapons such as knives and arrest them easily. Secondly, the policy of arming the police force has a distinct benefit as it issues a warning to anyone not to commit a crime. As a result, crime rate would significantly be reduced.
On the other hand, the use of guns by police officers may culminate in severe consequences. Generally, it is inevitable that policemen can make mistakes by indeliberately injuring innocent citizens if a crime happens in public places, which creates fear among residential communities. Furthermore, offenders could also purchase deadly weapons to resist and retaliate the policemen when they are aware of the menace from the policy, resulting in the escalation of violent crimes.
In conclusion, it seems that both sides of the argument have convincing points. Although I admit that police forces have the right to carry firearms, I firmly believe that they should be strictly trained to utilize guns in proper situations to avoid any unwanted outcomes.

[Luschen]

Hi Le Khoi, I think your English is this essay is quite good, but I feel you need to address the prompt more directly. This is not a “discuss both sides and give your viewpoint” prompt, it is strictly a “to what extent do you agree or disagree?”. Thus, your thesis statement is not really appropriate. More importantly you never in your essay declare the exact extent to which you agree or disagree. With this type of prompt, your thesis statement should explicitly answer this questions and each paragraph should support why you hold this particular viewpoint. Be very careful with this, because even with excellent writing, if you do not address the prompt correctly you will get a low Task Achievement score, which will reduce your overall band.

@Le_Khoi

The proliferation of crime is one of the most alarming issues[ in the last decade and has garnered] much public attention. {your original sounded a little odd - is the point that of all the issues that have gotten much attention, this is one of the most alarming ones? or is the point that this is one of the most alarming issues and it has also gotten much attention? Your sentence seemed to imply the former, but I think the latter is more reasonable} While some people argue that the police force should be entitled to use firearms for the maintenance of peace, {“to maintain peace” sounds more natural} others believe [this] will act as a stimulant [to brutality] rather than a deterrent. This essay will analyze both sides of the problem and state my viewpoint. {for this type of prompt, I think you need to state your opinion and the extent to which you hold it in the thesis}
On the one hand, police possession of guns undeniably has many benefits with regard to protecting the citizens and the police themselves from criminal threats. Firstly, as emergencies can occur any time, policemen {“police officers” is the more gender neutral term} should be armed with firearms to become more proactive [in controlling] the situation. Due to the fact that [a ]gun is commonly known to be the symbol of authority, gun ownership allows the police to overpower offenders using [more] primitive {or “comparatively primitive”} weapons such as knives and arrest them easily. Secondly, the policy of arming the police force has a distinct benefit as it issues a warning to [potential perpetrators] {here’s a vocabulary suggestion} not to commit a crime. As a result, [the] crime rate would significantly be reduced.
On the other hand, the use of guns by police officers may culminate in severe consequences. Generally, it is inevitable that policemen can make mistakes by indeliberately {the website spell checker does not think this is a word - Merriam Webster Dictionary says it is though, maybe “accidentally” is safer} injuring innocent citizens if a crime happens in public places, which creates fear among residential communities. Furthermore, offenders could also purchase deadly weapons to resist and retaliate [against] the policemen when they are aware of the menace from the policy, resulting in the escalation of violent crimes.
In conclusion, it seems that both sides of the argument have convincing points. Although I admit that police forces have the right to carry firearms, I firmly believe that they should be strictly trained to utilize guns in proper situations to avoid any unwanted outcomes.