Gun Control Debate Analysis

1184 Words5 Pages
Gun Control Debate Jake Novak, in an article for CNBC titled, “Gun control isn’t the answer. We already know how to stop the violence,” gives his opinion regarding the controversial issue of gun control. Novak argues that gun control is not the answer to rising gun violence but that proper enforcement of the law would go a long way in reducing the cases of gun violence in America. He states, “We actually solved the issue of rising gun violence in America in the mid-1990’s and again in the early 2000’s by doing something radical. We enforced the law” (Novak 28). While Novak does not necessarily appear to support any side of the gun control argument, he does imply that Republicans have largely derailed efforts to enforce the law regarding gun violence cases. The writer’s main purpose for writing the article is to show that there is a different way of looking at the gun control debate and to also show the wrongs, in his opinion, that are committed by the interested parties in this debate. Novak takes the risk of appearing subjective in his article which can make him appear less professional. As a journalist, he is supposed to appear…show more content…
On the issue of gun control, I had always thought along the lines of opposing or supporting the issue but had never thought that there could be another argument different from these two main ones that could be discussed. It was therefore quite refreshing to look at the issue from Novak’s point of view. The fact that he provided evidence to support his claim that law enforcement has worked before in reducing gun violence cases made his article all the more interesting and believable. He shows that the debate on gun control may just have been pointless all this time as the issue that should be discussed is really not whether people should have guns or not but rather how to enforce the law to ensure that perpetrators of gun violence are
Open Document