All societies have their reasoning for using such deadly weapons through good intentions or not. But I can not take either side on this "moral" argument. Because such weapons can make countries feel safe or make "the man" feel like he is in charge by "flashing and aiming" his shiny new toys at you (North Korea). With good intentions holding such deadly weapons can be an advantage and a good thing for everyone even when it is used. An example of this is when our president dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. Even though it was a tragic event many many lives were saved because of it and it ended the war. So in the end I suppose it is moral to have these things but ONLY when they are in the right hands. These types of things are meant for responsible people who have good intentions and that is my opinion.
Question: Discuss the ethics behind and the impact of the weapons that were used in A Long Way Gone.
The army and the RUF in Sierra Leone gave very young boys very dangerous weapons to fight for their country. These boys lived for the war and their gun was their figurative "rock". These deadly weapons were like teddy bears to them, teddy bears they might have had, before they had been drugged up on brown-brown and brainwashed to kill. They held tight to their guns in front of them, like they might have held to their mothers skirt when they were young if they were shy or nervous, it was their security and for them their gun meant life. Weaponry was a HUGE role in this story and I absolutely do NOT agree with the ethics of these supposed "leaders" (army and RUF). I believe that such young boys should be at home enjoying their childhood. But, in reality many boys are deprived of their childhood. Maybe one day everyone can enjoy such a marvelous thing.
