Even though gun violence has always plagued humanity, authorities still fail to remove the dangerous equipment at hand. Of course, in the article “The solution to gun violence is clear” published in December 12, 2012, issue of The Washington post, opinionated writer Fareed Zakaria makes his claim on why guns should be banned in the United States. Although this is an interesting subject Zakaria is not very authoritative on his claim. He argues that there are too many guns, too easy to obtain, and the country’s “permissive laws” are making it worst for Americans. Zakaria writes about how much of a better difference the lack of access to guns, have in other countries to make his point. He points out the different issues in the country, mental …show more content…
Zakaria writes, “The United States could do better, but we take mental disorders seriously and invest more in this area than do many peer countries.” He then goes on to say “There will always be evil or disturbed people.” While Zakaria is correct that “There will always be disturbed people” his assertion is still difficult to accept. These “disturbed people” should be focused on, he fails to realize that the focus in other issues such as mental health issues could lead to a decrease in “gun violence” in the country. Gun issues cannot be the only issue focused on while there is other important issues to be dealt with also, like a mental disorder that cannot be avoided. Zakaria’s entire argument rest on the idea that “easy access to guns” are somehow more important than any other thing going on. Furthermore, by asserting that gun violence can stop, with more attention Zakaria forgets that that’s how gun violence …show more content…
Instead of sticking with his credibility and stating any good reasoning for his assertion, Zakaria quickly adopts a repeating tone. Ultimately, his plead to focus more on “gun violence” relies on weak assertions, and in complex analogies regarding the use of guns in the United states. While he begins by stating statistical values of gun violence in the country, Zakaria can’t seem to back-up the numbers, and the reasons the guns were used. In the end, by asserting that the main focus should be on gun violence and not other major issues, Zakaria undermines both the credibility and the effectiveness of his
Conservative gun-rights advocates should acknowledge that if more states had a stringent universal background check, or if a federal law put these in place, more guns would be kept out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable (Goldberg). Even though Americans who are qualified to possess firearms shouldn't be denied the right to participate in their own defense. Guns can be used to do evil, but guns can also be used to do good (Goldberg). It’s important that people know this concept and how guns should be
In the article, Katz interviewed Harold Pollack of The University of Chicago, and he states that “gun reform can’t be achieved until americans stop looking at mental illness as a scapegoat for violent behavior”. In the interview, Mr Pollack also states that severe mental illnesses only account for 5% of the violence that is seen in America. Pollack additionally adds that he believes that people who carry concealed gun permits are not the dangerous people but that they are supporting or contributing to the problem in america which is gun violence. Pollack is trying to persuade the public that instead of mental illness being the problem, That it’s actually guns. The average gun enthusiast would probably say that guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
“Our Blind Spot about Guns” Rhetorical Analysis Essay American Journalist, Nicholas Kristof, in his essay, “Our Blind Spot about Guns”, addresses that if only guns were regulated and controlled like cars, there would be less fatalities. Kristof’s purpose is to emphasize how much safer cars are now than in the past, while guns do not have the same precautions. He constructs a compelling tone in order to convince the reader that the government should take more control on the safety of guns and who purchases them. Kristof builds credibility by successfully exerting emotional appeals on the audience, citing plausible statistics, and discussing what could possibly be done to prevent gun fatalities. Kristof begins his essay by discussing how automobile
Roadmap The issue of gun control has been controversial for years and it is far from being resolved. This paper’s intent is not to pick and choose a side but to explore the different opinions and to look at past court cases and current legislation on gun control to gain a wider perspective on the issue. Some believe that firearm regulation is a safety net and thereby prevents crime from occurring. Others argue that those who are planning to commit a crime are not opposed to finding illegal methods of obtaining firearms while the ordinary citizen will not go to those drastic lengths and therefore are more vulnerable due to the ‘roadblocks’ those regulations can become.
The first element is concern. The concern on school shooting is the issue of gun policy in the United States. The newspapers depicted the perpetrators as those who suffer from mental health problems or are troubled psychologically. An example of the perpetrator in one the case of school shooting is quoted from Johnson et.al, (2014) “Ryan Lanza, the suspect's 24-year-old brother, was questioned by law enforcement in Hoboken, N.J., and said Adam was believed to suffer from a personality disorder”. However, the media did not lay the blame on the shooters but rather on how easy it is for gun to be acquired in America, as stated in Diblasio et.al (2014)
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Many believe this, but columnist Nicholas Kristof, author of “Our Blind Spot about Guns,” published in 2014 in the New York Times, disagrees. A rhetorical analysis should consist of: logos, pathos, and ethos. Kristof’s use of logos is strong due to the amount of facts and statistics he offers to his audience, but he fails to strongly use pathos and ethos, due to the lack of these elements Kristof’s argument is weakened.
In today’s society, one of the most alienating issues in American politics is gun control. More specifically, the issue is whether or not guns should be banned in the United States. Some people would say that guns should be banned because it would reduce crime as a whole and keep citizens safer. These people, enthusiasts of stricter gun laws, fear being safe in their country where there are so many people who have access to guns. Opponents of this argument, however, also fear losing safety.
When the 2nd amendment was established, the most complex guns we had were muskets, and we needed to defend ourselves from what we felt was tyranny; the American Revolution was still in the rearview mirror for all Americans to consider. Ever since those words were written, however, gun technology has dramatically increased – despite fully automatic weapons being banned from the public, bump stocks that simulate a fully automatic weapon can be purchased with relative ease. Most Americans feel we can do better when it comes to gun control; in a Washington Post article by Scott Clement and Emily Guskin, 77% polled said more effective mental health screening could have
With America owning over two hundred and seventy million guns, gun control has been a complicated issue for years. Not only is it a popular debate topic, but it is also a common political issue. Although there are several opinions, there are two clear umbrellas; those for gun control, and those against it. On average, there are over 90 gun deaths per day in the US. This isn’t a political issue; it’s a safety issue.
Addressing a firm gun advocate in disagreement with this stance, one critic of more restrictions may quickly suggest the famous phrase: “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Although the phrase may stand true in some literal sense, we can surely all agree that a person in possession of an automatic assault rifle has the ability to effortlessly kill an alarming rate of many, many more people in a short amount of time compared to a person with a weapon such as a pocket knife. Although the amount of kills last year from specifically automatic weapons were not an overwhelming amount, the restriction of these will make it that much more difficult to abuse if the average citizen cannot have access to any at all. One can admit a simple pistol
To go forth, the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action states that the government is banning guns such as rifles which lack the capacity to cause mass murders (Ridder). Basically, these guns serve the purpose of simply entertainment and cannot amount to the menace of the criminal use of firearms. Undoubtedly, this article demonstrates how the government’s use of gun control laws is acting on a lack of understanding of the banned object. Moreover, the government should not ban guns such as rifles
Athulya Purushothaman ID: 150078 WSEM 1: The American Problem Professor: Jim Henry Final Draft: 14-10-2016 America’s Gun Policy Gun policy is known as one of the most debated and divisive issue in the United States today. Gun ownership in United States is larger than any of the countries. The recent mass shootings in America has led to its comparison with other democracies, who have taken immediate actions against such traumatic situation by making restrictions in the gun ownership and banning semi automatic weapons. My literature review will discuss about what scholars, journalist and others think about the loopholes in the gun policy, why is it difficult to enforce gun control and how all these affects its own citizens and the global world.
In this paper, i’ll be discussing my own opinion on the nationwide debate, which is to meet in the middle. Growing up a conservative republican, I obviously lean more to the side of not increasing gun control and leaving it be, but I don’t fully agree with my political party. We obviously have an issue in this country right now with mass shootings, and murders, so I do believe we should do something. Here are some facts to take into account. In 2017 alone there have been 2,073 deaths caused by guns, 3,552 injuries, 79 of those children, 34 mass shootings, which is usually defined as four or more people dying.
Owning guns in the United States is not a novel concept. What seems to be changing is the awareness of the American people of the dangers guns possibly pose; heightened awareness brought on by news breaking stories about large mass shootings have sparked major controversy in regards to the nation’s gun regulations and accessibility. In a Ted Talk given by Dan Gross: Why Gun Violence Can’t be Our New Normal in Vancouver, British Columbia, Gross boldly states his unwillingness to accept gun violence as a societal norm in the US and in his Ted Talk argues that gun violence may be greatly reduced if guns were managed and regulated properly, and by putting in place Brady background checks nationwide to ensure that guns will truly be kept away from
Misinformation; it is spread day by day when one person talks to another. A slight error in facts might end up with another person having a completely different meaning on a situation or issue. Stories traveling from people to people end up like a game of telephone, where the final person to hear information might be told something completely different than the initial person telling the story stated. With the invention of the internet, the thoughts of people are able to travel quicker than ever. People are able to find other people with similar viewpoints on politics, religion, and ideology more easily than ever.