Bullet for bullet, is it the right policy?
We live in a world where people are becoming intolerant of each other. People are quick to revenge because they believe that tit for tat is a fair game, which is the same as a bullet for bullet. We cannot gain much by taking revenge; instead, revenge causes more harm to many innocent people. When a person takes revenge or applies the bullet to bullet policy, what does that person gain in the end? I know it is not easy to keep quiet when someone does something bad to you. It is obvious that if someone fires a bullet at you, you will want to defend yourself. You will fight to protect yourself against any harm, but a bullet to bullet is not the right policy when solving some of the social problems. If everyone was to follow this policy, no one will have survived by now because people will have killed each other. If someone like Mahatma Gandhi were to apply this policy to the British colonies, the British government would have killed thousands of innocent people. That is why Gandhi preferred using nonviolent action by encouraging his followers telling them that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Therefore, bullet for the bullet is not the best policy.
Like Mahatma Gandhi, I believe that rooted in vengeance cannot solve any problem .For instance, if you throw a stone back to the person who threw the stone at you, a fight might ensue, This is the same with the bullet to bullet because when two people think of revenge instead on reconciliation, their actions will not benefit the society, this might lead to a wrong path, and the whole world will be affected by their negative actions. As educated people, we need to think logically and sensibly to reduce conflicts among us by increasing positive relation.
The law of bullet for bullet should not apply because even if we live in a democratic country, the law should be our guide. We need to follow the constitution that offers citizens several fundamental rights one of them being right to life. However, the right to life does not mean we have the right to kill someone even if the person tried to kill us, there is no doubt that self-defense is acceptable in certain circumstances, that is why the Constitution draws some limitation of its usage. The law does not permit bullet to bullet under self-defense; it only specifies certain circumstances that qualify to be called self-defense. In case we face any harm as a victim, one has the right to get the legal redress. Even though the punishment will not be equal to the harm, you experienced, but the punishment serves as a warning to any perpetrator that the laws are there to protect everyone from harm.
If we decide to take revenge by making the same mistake that is done to us, we are likely to face the law. Laws are important because they protect us and promote peace and harmony among the citizens. Therefore, if someone fires at you, you should not fire back. Even Gandhi was against revenge and promoted nonviolence leading India to attain independence without any bloodshed. We cannot curb terrorism by terrorism this would start an endless war, and everyone will eventually be killed. That is why we need to shun violence, promote peace at all times, and learn to live in harmony by shunning any action that can cause conflicts among us.