Conflicting View Points Essay

The adoption of a believing game allows individuals to be as welcoming as possible with whatever idea they encounter by not only listening to opinions different from their own but also trying to believe them. This concept of the believing game is essential in scrutinizing the hidden virtues in ideas that people find repulsive. For instance, the issue as to whether or not more gun control laws should be adopted is an intensely debated topic with conflicting viewpoints. From my perspective, the government should pass more gun laws because ideally, the Second Amendment was meant for militia and besides, with more gun laws, gun violence would be restricted. Furthermore, gun restriction laws have always existed, and even a majority of Americans including several gun owners support the idea of more gun restrictions. There are, however, conflicting opinions that have emerged to oppose the enactment of more gun laws which this essay intends to discuss and apply the believing game concept.

First, contrary opinions argue that the Second Amendment of the U.S constitution protects an individual gun ownership. With this reasoning, opponent implies that more gun restriction laws would infringe people's right to bear arms which is contrary to the U.S constitution. This view is to some extent significant as it broadens the concept of the Second Amendment which appears to differentiate and demonstrate the disconnection between gun use in militia service and its use for traditionally lawful purposes. If I would believe this view, then I would notice that gun ownership is an American tradition that is older than the nation itself and protected by the Second Amendment. This ideology would be right in an event to maintain liberty against government encroachment just like with other rights of free press and freedom of religion among others.

Secondly, conflicting viewpoints argue that gun control laws do not prevent crimes, but instead, gun ownership deters crime based on the logic that gun possession inflicts fear of retaliation from victims thus discouraging gun crimes. There is logic in this argument because coming to think of it; there is no established proof that countries with more gun restrictions have lesser crimes than those with less strict gun laws. In fact, if I were to believe this argument I would realize that states that allow more gun ownership have the highest drops in violent crimes. This case may be valid in the sense that when guns are outlawed then only the outlaws will possess weapons and this means that more people will be victimized.

Lastly, opponents claim that gun control laws overstep on peoples right to self-defense and deny them a sense of security. This view is quite interesting because ideally citizens need to protect themselves and the police are incapable of protecting everyone at once. Therefore If I were to believe the argument, I would know that self-defense is a natural occurrence that emanates out of the right to life. Thus, this standpoint could be correct especially when there is a need to avoid interfering with the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from violent crimes.

In conclusion, critical thinking can at times impede people from viewing things beyond their perspective and finding something positive concerning a perception initially contended. But with the believing game, one is able establishing hidden virtues in ideas that people find repellant, and it's the reason why I can conclude that to some extent both parties concerning the issue of more gun laws could be right.