Hallo zusammen, ich habe eine „summary“ geschrieben und wollte einfach mal fragen ob die so ok ist. Besonders im 3. Abschnitt habe ich mich sehr schwer getan.
The text „Out of control? “describes the progresses and consequences of the bear arms in the American society. In addition deals the text with the question whether America does need stricter gun laws.
First of all the author writes about the problematical situation, that a lot of people have handguns, assault weapons or rifles. Secondly the question is discussed whether; the U.S. government have to restrict the laws, because these incidents like the shooting massacre at Virgina Tech and at Columbine High Scholl in Colorado. And finally different statements of this topic are introduced.
Strangely, a lot of peoples are agreeing with the laws. And I find it hard to believe that some people like Roberta Mahlmgren or Ken Kohr are not finding it scary that everybody can have a gun, but rather feel more saver each other. (Seltsamerweise, sind viele Leute
Mit den Gesetzen einverstanden. Und ich kann nur schwer glauben, dass Leute wie … es nicht beängstigend finden, dass jeder eine Waffe haben kann, sondern sich eher sicherer fühlen.)
I seriously oppose the positions and I am still not convinced of these statements. Fortunately these are not the only arguments. James Webster is the opinion, that you shouldn’t be able to get a gun, if you be an aggressive person or have a criminal background. And Scott Byington thinks that weapons stay out of the hands of children.
Generally speaking you could say that both sides have good arguments. I think if you weighing the pros and cons one comes to the conclusion that, weapons make the world not saver or better. All in all I oppose the view about absolutely bear arms from NRA, but nevertheless it is an interesting and well-written text.
Danke fürs lesen und danke fürs feedback.
LG