Hey everybody!
I have a problem, because I have to write to Friday a pro and con argumentation about the Topic: "Are only an armed people a free people" about 350 words!
And my English is not so good, and I need a good mark.... I hope somebody here can help me, very soon, because it´s very important... And for somebody who is from England or somthing else, it is not so hard for you to write this!
Please!!!!!
I have some argumentions: (but some of that are in German, because it is too difficult for me to translate it in good english
pro :
-guns to protect yourself
- free people must have the right to have a gun, because also criminals have guns
- amerikaner sehen es als ihre aufgabe sich und ihre familie zu beschützen ( gedanke der selbstverteidigung und selbst justiz schon geschichtlich votbelastet)
- einschränkung im waffengesetz ist gelich persönliche einschränkung, also weniger freiheit
contra:
- freiheit auch ohne waffenbesitz möglich (aufgabe der polizei....so mehr freiheit für bürger)
- gefahr für kinder ( siehe schulattentate) ...d.h. auch einschränkung der freiheit
-es entsrteht falsche selbstjustiz
Thanks for helping me!
Greets, Marry
Help with homework!!!! Important
-
Marry
- Bilingual Newbie
- Beiträge: 3
- Registriert: 7. Nov 2006 12:32
-
Marry
- Bilingual Newbie
- Beiträge: 3
- Registriert: 7. Nov 2006 12:32
So i have written my pro and con argumentation, and could somebody please check it now? Please it is important! Thanks!
Are only an armed people a free people?
Weapons, weapons and weapons. Many people in America have a weapon. But if you want to have a weapon, than go to the police and have it for work. This sentence should all people hear, who want to have a weapon at home. Is it true that weapons making people free or do they not?
Many people think, that they need a weapon to protect yourself and free people have to have the right to have a weapon, because criminals also have weapons. That´s why Americans want to protect themselves and their family. In that case armed people could be free.
The second positive argument is if a family with small children lives in a safe neighborhood, then keeping the weapons locked up may indeed be safest choice. But if a family must live in a dangerous neighborhood, and if the parents have taught weapon safety to responsible older children, then having the weapon ready for immediate protection might be safer. That´s a very important point, which makes armed people free.
By contrast are a lot of arguments against this. Liberty is also possible without having a weapon, because to protect the civics is the task of the police. Maybe people would take the law into one´s own hands.
It arise danger for the children and because of that the restriction of liberty. In the United States, about half of all homes contain weapons; the total weapon supply is abaout 240 million, and they are tens of millions of children in the country. In 1995 there were about 30 fatal weapon deaths of kids aged 0 to 4 and fewer than 40 of kids aged 5 to 9.
In that case armed people aren´t free, because it could be too many casualty or dead persons.
In my view armed people couldn´t be really free. They have all time the risk to kill somebody. If they done it (maybe they wanted to protect yourself) they couldn´t live their earlier life, because if you kill somebody that will be always on your mind. In my view weapons for civics are not necassary! I think that the police have weapons is enough!
Are only an armed people a free people?
Weapons, weapons and weapons. Many people in America have a weapon. But if you want to have a weapon, than go to the police and have it for work. This sentence should all people hear, who want to have a weapon at home. Is it true that weapons making people free or do they not?
Many people think, that they need a weapon to protect yourself and free people have to have the right to have a weapon, because criminals also have weapons. That´s why Americans want to protect themselves and their family. In that case armed people could be free.
The second positive argument is if a family with small children lives in a safe neighborhood, then keeping the weapons locked up may indeed be safest choice. But if a family must live in a dangerous neighborhood, and if the parents have taught weapon safety to responsible older children, then having the weapon ready for immediate protection might be safer. That´s a very important point, which makes armed people free.
By contrast are a lot of arguments against this. Liberty is also possible without having a weapon, because to protect the civics is the task of the police. Maybe people would take the law into one´s own hands.
It arise danger for the children and because of that the restriction of liberty. In the United States, about half of all homes contain weapons; the total weapon supply is abaout 240 million, and they are tens of millions of children in the country. In 1995 there were about 30 fatal weapon deaths of kids aged 0 to 4 and fewer than 40 of kids aged 5 to 9.
In that case armed people aren´t free, because it could be too many casualty or dead persons.
In my view armed people couldn´t be really free. They have all time the risk to kill somebody. If they done it (maybe they wanted to protect yourself) they couldn´t live their earlier life, because if you kill somebody that will be always on your mind. In my view weapons for civics are not necassary! I think that the police have weapons is enough!
-
boert
Weapons, weapons and weapons. Many people in America have a weapon. But if you want to have a weapon, (thaen) go to the police and have it get it for work. This sentence should all people hear, who want to have a weapon at home. Is it true that weapons making e people free or do they not?
Many people think, that they need a weapon to protectyourtheirself and free people have to have the right to have a weapon, because criminals also have weapons. That´s why Americans want to protect themselves and their family. In that case armed people could be free.
The second positive argument is if a family with small children lives in a safe neighborhood, then keeping the weapons locked up may indeed be safest choice. But if a family must live in a dangerous neighborhood, and if the parents have taught weapon safety to responsible older children (hä?), then having the weapon ready for immediate protection might be safer. That´s a very important point, which makes armed people free.
By contrastare a lot of arguments are against this. Liberty is also possible without having a weapon, because to protect the civics civilians is the task of the police. Maybe people would take the law into one´s their own hands.
It arises danger for the children and because of that the restriction of liberty. In the United States, about half of all homes contain weapons; the total weapon supply is about 240 million, and they are tens of millions of children in the country. In 1995 there were about 30 fatal weapon deaths of kids aged 0 to 4 and fewer than 40 of kids aged 5 to 9.
In that case armed people aren´t free, because it could be (?) too many casualty or dead persons.
In my view armed peoplecouldn´t can't be really free. They have all timeThere is always a risk to kill somebody . If they done/did it (maybe they wanted to protect yourtheirself) they couldn´t live their earlier life, because if you kill somebody that will be always on your mind. In my view weapons for civicscivilians are not necassary! I think that the police have weapons is enough!
Many people think, that they need a weapon to protect
The second positive argument is if a family with small children lives in a safe neighborhood, then keeping the weapons locked up may indeed be safest choice. But if a family must live in a dangerous neighborhood, and if the parents have taught weapon safety to responsible older children (hä?), then having the weapon ready for immediate protection might be safer. That´s a very important point, which makes armed people free.
By contrast
It arises danger for the children and because of that the restriction of liberty. In the United States, about half of all homes contain weapons; the total weapon supply is about 240 million, and they are tens of millions of children in the country. In 1995 there were about 30 fatal weapon deaths of kids aged 0 to 4 and fewer than 40 of kids aged 5 to 9.
In that case armed people aren´t free, because it could be (?) too many casualty or dead persons.
In my view armed people
