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.