修改稿：

The Critical Thinking of Gun Control

  The control of guns differs from country to country. Some countries, like China, have strict rules about gun usage, while in other countries people have easy access to guns. The difference has caused controversies about whether it is better for a country to place strict restrictions on gun control or not. The gun control issue has both up and down sides. I want to subjectively discuss this question first.

  I approve the necessity of gun control because of the unpredictable consequences that the universality of guns ownership can cause. Imaging this, you step out of the door, looking at the busy street and pedestrians with a terrible thought——how do I know how many of them are carrying guns? And how many people could be killed by those guns accidentally or as a consequence of an everyday common conflict or verbally altercation? Many violent killings could be avoided, legally, and peacefully. There was once a Chinese student from a famous college who killed his roommates cruelly just for revenge. What if he had a gun? Nothing could be easier than just pull the trigger once, and end a life. Anger is an understandable behavior. However, when we get angry with people, we fight. If we have guns, then we shoot. Supporting my argument that consequences are serious concerning uncontrolled gun ownership. I believe that by having guns freely available in society we lose our basic trust of living together. I think that is why lots of countries have substantial laws against gun ownership. There are even very strict rules controlling the guns that are used to inject vaccine which only allow legal hospital and health organizations to have the right to use them.
  On the other hand, objectively, we should think carefully about this question, because if the legal ownership of guns is totally banned, no people in any country or state can own guns for any reason. When we talk about gun control, we have to consider why some people need guns. There are two main reasons——personal collection, or defending oneself. Then the question has to be asked——if there is gun control, why do you need one to defend yourself? If everyone is following the law then no-one is allowed to shoot you, but objectively speaking, the law doesn’t always work. For instance, Chicago has had gun-control laws for 28 year, but that’s apparently a joke, because everyone knows that Chicago has the largest number of guns among American cities. So what happens next? According to statistics, there are approximately 2.75 billion guns in America, and out of the 10100 homicides in 2005, three out of four of these cases were caused by guns. Another factor is the illegal sale of guns in those countries with gun control. Faced with these unavoidable facts the control of guns finally boils down to self-control. In a world where there are guns, it’s the gun-holders’ self-restraint that decides the legality of using guns.

第一稿：

The Critical Thinking of Gun control

The control of guns is different among countries. Some countries, like China, have strict rules about gun using, while in other countries, people can easily get a gun if they want to. The difference has caused controversies about whether it is better for a country to play strict restrictions on gun control or not, because the gun control has both up and down sides. I want to emotionally talk about my personal opinion towards that question first.

I approve the necessity of gun control because of the unpredictable consequences that the universality of guns owning can cause. Imaging this, you step out of the door, looking at the busy street and pedestrians with a terrible thought——how could I know that how many of them are carrying guns? And how many people could be killed by those guns accidentally, just because the common conflicts or verbally irritation in our everyday life? Many violent killing could be avoided, legally, and peacefully. There was once a Chinese student from a famous college who killed his roommates cruelly just for revenge. What if he had a gun? Nothing could be easier than just pull the trigger once, and end a life. It is, despite the inhumane way to do it, an understandable behavior. When we get angry with people, we fight. If we have guns, then we shoot. That’s the reason why I said the consequences is serious and uncontrolled. With the fact that anyone in the street may has a gun or more, we lost the basic trust to the living society that we live in. I think that is why lots of countries have substantial laws against the gun using (even guns that are used to inject vaccine have severe rules which indicate that only legal hospital and health organization have the right to use those guns).

On the other hand, exclusive my personal opinion, we should think carefully about this question, because if the legal owning of guns are really that bad, there won’t be any country, or state in some cases, in which we can own guns, live through today. When we talk about gun control, we have to consider why some people need guns and implicate what will happen next. Most of them are out of two different reasons——personal collection, or defending oneself. Then there’ll be a question——if there are discipline to limit the usage of guns, why you need it to defend yourself? It’s true that no one is allowed to shoot you, but objectively speaking, rules don’t always work. For instance, Chicago has a gun-controlling history for 28 year, but that’s apparently a joke, because everyone knows that Chicago has the largest sum of guns among American cities. So what happens next? According to statistics, there are approximately 2.75 billion guns among the people in America, and in the 10100 armed killing cases happened in 2005, three over four of these cases are with guns. And there are also illegal gun-selling in those countries with gun control. So the control of guns is finally attributed to the control of oneself. In most of the time, it’s the gun-holders’ self-control decide which decide the final consequences of legal & illegal using of guns.