A Ban on Guns?

Recently, I came across an article regarding a seventeen-year-old shooting fifteen people in Germany and then shooting himself after that. Most of the killings took place at or near the school that he had graduated from last year. This can be seen from the fact that nine students, three teachers and a passer-by outside the building were amongst his victims. The death toll from this incident almost matched that of the worst German school shooting, in which the death toll was sixteen people. This shooting rampage, along with the recent shooting tragedy in the American state of Alabama by Michael McLendon, has raised questions about the issue of gun control. The German teen probably got hold of the gun that he used from his father’s collection of guns, while McLendon had bought his guns. This means that a ban on the possession of guns would have prevented these killings. However, there is no such ban in Germany or America. Thus, I feel that the possession of guns by ordinary citizens should be banned everywhere.

Firstly, these tragedies show that guns in the hands of wrong people can lead to the loss of innocent lives. We must understand that a gun in a person’s possession puts him or her in a position of power. This weapon renders and unarmed person as harmless and susceptible. Due to this, many people obey an armed person’s orders for fear of losing their lives or getting seriously injured. Many people who have experience armed robberies would testify to this. Even political leaders have identified this power too as seen when Vladimir Lenin said “One man with a gun can control hundred without one.” This power is often wanted by people who want to have more influence or want to achieve their aims. These aims are usually to get revenge on others or just to obtain something. So, if a gun falls in the hands of wrong people. “Wrong people” refers to people who have unethical or immoral objectives. Such objectives often involve hurting, if not killing, other people. It should also be noted that such people are hard to identify, since a person’s personality can change any time. An example of such a person would be McLendon as he was described as a “nice and polite kid” by those close to him. However, he left a list of people whom he held grudges against as he felt that they had treated him and his family unfairly. So, why should we risk losing lives and make the dead people’s loved ones cry when we can stop all this shooting by banning the possession of guns by ordinary citizens.

Secondly, humans are emotional beings, who should not possess guns. It is not rare to see people flying into a rage and hurling obscenities at each other or seeing people crying over bad news or after being emotionally hurt. It is part of human nature to express our emotions, regardless who we are or what we are feeling. However, when we are experiencing emotions, like when we are boiling with rage, and have a weapon in our hand, we can be murderers on the loose. At such times, we cannot think clearly, let alone control our actions. So, with a weapon in our possession, we may vent our emotions through the weapon, which sometimes leads to deaths. The recent shootings in Germany and Alabama are just two examples of such shootings, triggered by such emotions. If the possession of guns by ordinary citizens was banned in these countries, we would have saved so many lives. Therefore, the possession of guns by ordinary citizens should be banned.

Now, the question may arise, “Why ban only guns and not other weapons?” Practically, the only other weapons that we can possess are knives, which we need to perform many actions from day to day, like cutting fruits. Guns do not serve any such purpose and thus, should be banned.

Now, people in support of the possession of guns argue that these guns are required for self-defence. The book “Ayn Rand Answers” states that if a people have a right to their lives, they should surely have the right to a means to protect their lives. So, a person has a right to a firearm, like a gun, for self-defence. However, it must be noted that firearms are not the only forms of self-defence. By trying to clamp down on crimes and voting for people willing to do so, a person is defending himself or herself as no criminals means that nobody owns a gun illegally (if a ban on the possession of guns was imposed). Ordinary citizens possessing guns migh and has led to more criminals who shoot for more personal reasons, instead of reasons like stealing. McLendon and the seventeen-year-old German are just two examples of such gunmen.

Thus far, it can be seen that banning ordinary citizens from possessing guns, along with clamping down on crimes, would have saved many lives and prevented the tragedies, like the recent ones that took place in Germany and Alabama. In other words, such a ban is in the interest of humans as a whole. Therefore, it is a clear “No” from me on ordinary citizens possessing guns!

Practice Commentary for Upcoming Commentary Test

Recently, I came across an article regarding a seventeen-year-old shooting fifteen people in Germany and then killing himself. Most of the killings took place at or near the school that he had graduated from last year. This can be seen from the fact that of the fifteen killed, nine students and three teachers and a passer-by outside the building were shot in or near the school. The death toll from this incident almost matched that of the worst German school shooting, in which the death toll was sixteen people. This shooting rampage, along with the recent shooting tragedy in the American state of Alabama, has raised questions about the issue of gun control.  The German teen probably got hold of the pistol that he used from his father’s collection of sixteen guns and the gunman in Alabama had bought his guns. This simply means that a ban on possessing guns would have prevented these shooting tragedies. However, there is no ban on the possession of guns in either Germany or America. Thus, I feel that the possession of guns should be banned everywhere.

Firstly, as seen from the shooting rampages, the guns in the possession of the wrong people can lead to the loss of innocent lives. We must understand the position of power that a person comes into when he or she holds a weapon. The weapon renders anyone without arms as harmless and susceptible. Due to this, weapons also frighten most people as they know that an armed person can take lives or seriously injure people. This also puts the armed person in a position of power. This power has been identified by past leaders as well when Vladimir Lenin said, “One man can control hundred without one.” This power is often wanted by a people who think that they are in a position of little influence and want to achieve their aims. This aim could be taking revenge for unfair treatment or just to get something. So, if the armed person falls under the group of wrong people, the situation becomes potentially life-threatening. When I refer to “wrong people”, the reference is being made to people who want to achieve their unethical or immoral objectives through any means. Such objectives usually involve hurting others or allowing the armed person to get something that he or she does not deserve. It should also be noted that these wrong people can often be hard to identify and could be anyone altogether as a person’s personality can change any time. For example, the earlier mentioned gunman in Alabama, Michael McLendon, was described as a “nice and polite kid” by those who knew him. However, he held grudges against some people who he felt had treated his mother and him unfairly. Thus, he tried to attain a position of power by using a gun in order to exact his revenge on them.  Therefore, it is the safest choice in the interest of fellow humans that the possession of guns by ordinary citizens be banned.

Secondly, humans are emotional beings, who should not be in possession of guns. It is not rare to see people flying into a rage over trivial issues and hurling obscenities. At other times, one gets to see people breaking down and weeping over bad news or after being emotionally hurt. We, humans, always express our emotions, whether we are happy or furious or sad. These emotions are part of our lives but when we have a gun or any other weapon and are experiencing extreme emotions, we can be murderers on the loose. Extreme emotions, like when we are boiling with rage, are very often uncontrollable. Thus, when we experience such emotions, we cannot think clearly, let alone control our actions. This can and sometimes even does results in us using weapons as a means to vent our emotions, which in turn can cause deaths. The recent shootings by the seventeen-year-old German and Michael McLendon (in Alabama) are just two examples of such behaviour possibly triggered by emotions. Therefore, the possession of guns by ordinary citizens should be banned.

Now, the question may arise, “Why ban only guns and not other weapons?” The reason is rather simple. Practically, the only other weapon that ordinary citizens currently are allowed to possess is a knife. Knives are needed for daily purposes, like cutting fruits and vegetables, spreading butter, cutting cakes. So, they cannot be banned. However, this is not the case for guns. Guns are lethal weapons that cannot serve any daily. They can, at the very best, be used for self defence.

This brings me to the argument in support of ordinary citizens possessing guns. This group of people say that the possession of guns is a form of self-defence. As stated in the book “Ayn Rand Answers”, denying anyone the right to have a means to protect one’s life is absurd when he or she has a right to his or her life. In other words, it is necessary for anyone to have a right to own a firearm (gun) as a form of self defence as he or she has a right to his or her life. However, it must be noted that firearms are not the only form of self-defence. By trying to help clamp down on crimes as a society and voting for people who are willing to do this, we are defending ourselves. Otherwise, allowing ordinary citizens to possess guns, we might and have caused criminals to arise who shoot for personal reasons instead of reasons like stealing.  Examples of such criminals would be the gunmen from Germany and Alabama.

Thus far, it can be seen that banning ordinary citizens from possessing guns, along with clamping down on crimes, could effectively prevent shooting tragedies like those in Germany and Alabama while keeping citizens safe. Therefore, it is a clear “No” from me on ordinary citizens possessing guns!

Orchard Road Facelift - A Waste or Good Use of Money?

Orchard Road is a major shopping district of Singapore. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that it is iconic of Singaporeans' shopaholic nature with malls lining the road on both sides. Every year, many tourists come here to see this place and experience Singapore. Therefore, it is only imperative that the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) would pay special attention to this iconic road. It was probably due to this that there was a massive $40 million facelift for this road, usually abuzz with life. However, after its completion, the question has arisen, "Was the money spent worth it?"

Firstly, we must note that $ 40 million is not a small amount. In numbers, it is $ 40 000 000! That is a whopping sum to spend on anything. So, for this amount of money spent on the facelift, there must have been a significant difference that it makes. However, according to various interviews conducted, many did not notice any significant change. In fact, in a poll by the Sunday Times, the number who fell in this group was 40 out of the 100 polled. Now, if so many people did not notice the change made during the facelift, why spend so much money? Orchard Road before the facelift was still attracting tourists and locals alike. Thus, the facelift was unnecessary. This money could be spent on better things like improving the maintenance and cleanliness levels. Moreover, more elderly-friendly features, like ramps instead of stairs could have been built, which would fall in line with the government's aim of making Singapore a more elderly-friendly place for its rapidly ageing population.

Now, one might say that the facelift did improve the greenery in the area, thus ensuring that Singapore lived up to its billing as "The Garden City". It would attract more people to the area. However, as earlier mentioned, what is the use of this when a significant portion of people did not notice these changes? This finding essentially means that this improvement in greenery would not increase the number of people coming to Orchard Road by much.

Secondly, this facelift also hurt the tourism and sales industry when it was being carried out. Many tourists, who came during the time that the facelift was taking place, said that they were disappointed with what they saw at Orchard Road. Some reasons that they cited for their disappointment was the difficulty in getting around and the lack of crowd. That is not all. Sales also dipped during this period as the works blocked people from coming or seeing vendors or shops. This fact is furher worsened by the fact that the facelift was being done when the world was in economic downturn. In such a climate, it is essential to try to attract tourist since tourism is an essential part of Singapore's economy. However, by conducting the facelift at that time, the STB was essentially worsening sales and driving tourists away . Although the facelift is aimed at increasing sales and toursim in the long term, by reducing the revenue earned during this period of time was an inconsiderate action since people and companies desparartely need money needed money at this time. Such an inconsiderate action by The STB was really a blemish on its work to attract tourists so far and is something that they should have considered. Ordinary people were also inconvenienced during this time due to the poor accessibility of transport, like MRT stations. Mrs Shahana B, an executive who works in the Orchard area described the area as "a work-in-progress". Thus, one can imagine what an impact this facelift would have had on the tourism and sales industries during the time it was being carried out

Lastly, the facelift also seems to have disappointed locals here as well. Some people find that the Orchard area is not clean because a lot of leaves can be seen scattered all over the pavement.Others said that the facelift does not look finished. Locals also find some of the new additions under the facelift annoying or without purpose. For instance, Designer Josephine Jane complained, "The flower totems are annoying because they block your view and we don't really know the purpose of the glass panel." If the facelift does not make an impression with locals, it means that the facelift has not achieved its purpose of beautifying Orchard Road.

Therefore, I feel that Orchard Road facelift was a waste of $40 million, a large sum that could have been put to better use, like by making Orchard Road more elderly-friendly, which is in accordance with the government's plans to make Singapore an elderly-friendly country.