In some countries, the number of shootings increase because many people have guns at home. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

Across the globe, many individuals own guns for self-defence and recreational purposes. Gun-related mortalities in households –

in particular

– throw the ethics of

such

forms of private gun ownership into sharp relief. In

this

essay, I shall appeal to crime statistics to argue that a person is at a far greater risk being shot or leading to injuries if there is a pistol in a

household

.

Firstly

, it is intuitively obvious that having a gun in a

household

endangers children and teenagers.

This

is because minors do not have the requisite knowledge or maturity to handle guns safely.

For example

, the US Department of Justice recently revealed statistics showing that 150 American children and teenagers die each year because of accidents relating to

household

guns.

Therefore

it is incontrovertible that

household

guns lead to additional shootings.

Secondly

,

household

guns became especially dangerous when spouses have violent arguments.

This

is because male sexual rage,

in particular

, often results in deadly aggression.

For example

, The International Crime Bureau recently produced statistical evidence that – if there is a

household

gun – a man is twice as likely (if he discovers his wife having an affair) to kill her in a fit of jealous rage.

Therefore

, once again,

household

guns correlate positively with additional shootings. In conclusion, there is undeniable evidence that having a revolver in a house leads to

further

shootings. Given the strength of

this

evidence, in the future, more legislature needs to be put in place to limit private pistol ownership.