An Act Throughout the recent years of living in the US, it is not unusual to hear about a shooting happening every day. The US skyrocketed above other nations around the globe statistically in the amount of shootings every year. Because of the second amendment, “The right of the people to keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” citizens in the United States, in the past, have been protected by the 2nd amendment since 1789. However, the amount of shootings are increasing in the US and the staggering amount of lives that are lost around the nation are also increasing, should the everyday citizens still be allowed to blame their malicious actions on the 2nd amendment? All throughout the article, “Gun Control That Actually Works,” Alan Berlow …show more content…
Although, “Gun Control That Actually Works,” is a short piece of text, the reader only gets provided with one idea. The short article is filled with useful information about the acts and laws of guns, however, it never really uses any emotion while explaining the problem.Throughout the years, gun violence has affected millions directly and indirectly. To truly convince the readers of the point Alan was making he should have included pathos in his argument. The article, “End the Gun Epidemic in America,” The Editorial Board, demonstrated the argument with pathos by her first line, “All decent people feel sorrow and righteousness fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California.” Berlow would have hooked his audience more by using more of that logic. More people would have supported his article and the point he was trying to make. The Editorial Board did a fantastic job at grabbing the reader 's attention and making them begin to think about their opinion on the topic. In order to fully grab the reader 's attention and strengthen an article, the author should use ethos, pathos, and logos at least once. Berlow’s article is lacking in incorporating emotion, which led to it as being not as strong of an article as it could …show more content…
All he does in the article is explain the act itself. Instead of just explaining the act he needed to share his opinion how how the issue of the matter can be resolved. In the first paragraph he introduces this act, “In 1934 measure called the National Firearms Act, and it stands as a stark rebuke to the most sacred precepts of the gun lobby…” and his last paragraph provides another act, “Eight years of experience with the N.F.A has demonstrated that people who register weapons rarely commit the crimes.” It is clear he understands that the N.F.A. is not doing all it can to stop these shootings, however, he needed to provide multiple solutions to solving the problem of the amount of shooting the US has yearly. If Berlow wants to have more people side with his opinion on the subject then he needs to add more support to his
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
He first states that “there are 86 Americans killed every day with firearms” (Lucas, "New Gun Laws Won't save Lives."). This statement alone should set off some red flags somewhere because this means that the law makers aren’t doing a very good job on what they put in place to keep Americans safe. He follows up by saying “there are approximately 2.5 million deaths in America each year, with approximately 31,000 deaths by firearms. ”(Lucas, "New Gun Laws Won't save Lives.") Again red flags should be shooting up for the law makers, which is where his point is implied.
It is the idea on whether the regulation of the manufacturing, sale, and possession of guns should be allowed. In the article Obama: 'Fewer gun safety laws don't mean more freedom' by Kelly Cohen, Obama mentions the issue of gun possession and how the community should act in compliance to eliminate this issue. The article focuses on the thoughts of Obama, showing use of ethos, as he is a figure that everyone would want to follow. Cohen states, “Obama said fewer than 100 Americans have been killed by terrorists on United States soil since 9/11, but roughly 400,000 Americans have been shot and killed by guns over the same period.” He states these statistics to stress the importance to readers that gun control is a serious issue.
Closing statement: The debate about gun control is inappropriate, because it does not go far enough. Only a completely ban of privately owned firearms can help drastically reduce the number of firearms related deaths and save countless lives. Without a doubt, the proposition of a complete ban of firearms will be met with fierce opposition. Critics will point at their eagerness to hunt, shoot for recreational purposes, and use guns for self-defense. However, recreational hunting and target practice are hardly basic rights that must be preserved at all costs.
Gun Control in the United States Does Gun Control work? ,and if it does work,Does gun control have to be necessary?For those who are unaware gun control refers to laws or policies that regulate manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, and/or the use of firearms. According to CNN 67% of americans support gun control,when research has shown that states with stricter gun control laws have significantly higher homicide rates compared to those of states with lenient gun control laws. When talking about gun control and looking at the homicide rates of states with lenient and strict gun control laws one will realize that gun control does not work. However there are many solutions to lowering the homicide rates in states with high homicide
Throughout history, especially recently, the question of whether gun control violates the 2nd Amendment has been a question which many people claim they know the answer to, but it may not be that transparent. I believe gun control is constitutional, and it deters crime and makes society safer, meaning I side with the pro-gun control ideas. Within the topic of gun control, there are many factors in which people must take into consideration when proposing an answer such as whether it deters crime, what the economic impact is, and what should be changed. NEW PARAGRAPH... Gun control can date way back, but what really made it controversial was the court case of Heller vs DC in 2008.
The second amendment is being abused and misused on how this is supposed to benefit us. Mass shooters will use this right to justify their actions. Eugene Robinson, an opinion writer of The Washington Post wrote “When the framers wrote of “arms,” they were thinking about muskets and single-shot pistols. They could not have foreseen modern rifles or high capacity magazine.”
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
“Until it Happens to You” Considering the tragic history of mass shootings in the United States, specifically the most recent at Stoneman Douglass High School, I find the split in gun control to be absolutely riveting. No matter where one stands on the political spectrum, everyone always appears to have something to contribute to the gun control debate. It is evident that Congress must act when examining the seventeen murders at the hands of former Stoneman Douglass student Nikolas Cruz. Guns are more accessible than ever, and this is putting everyone’s lives at risk. A mass shooter wants to cause chaos, perhaps in a separate way than they had intended: after generations of like debates, it is time to talk about the consequences of allowing
“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
Looking at the utilitarian approach, it is seen to have significant meaning for both those that are for and against gun control. As the utilitarian theory approach focuses on the theory that “an action is ethical if the good that it is predicted to produce outweighs the bad”. In this case, depending on the perspective of the individual, it can have significantly lead to different conclusions that supports both sides of the gun control debate. Specifically, gun control proponents have argued that the utilitarian approach is justification for gun control as the banning of gun ownership will protect society and make the world a better place through a lower chance of gun violence despite the restraining of civil liberties. On the other hand, gun control
Regulating guns will not stop all of the killings that are occurring in America, and there are better ways to cease the killings than regulating guns. Body Paragraph One: Topic Sentence: Regulating mental health will be more effective in ceasing killings with guns than regulating guns. In an analysis provided, 22 percent of the perpetrators of 235 mass killing, could be considered mentally ill, many of which were carried out with firearms (Qui). Almost 25% of mass shooting killers are being considered mentally ill
The professor and director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health named Daniel Webster, believes that federal universal background checks for gun purchasers would reduce deaths from firearms. He thinks that Individuals with mental illness, criminal records and a history of domestic violence -- as well as those under the age of 20 -- should be barred from purchasing guns, Webster said. In the year of 2007 Missouri repealed restrictive laws, later on the rate for gun homicide had increased to 25 percent. The annual record of deaths from firearms is 31,000, 60 percent is caused by suicide, and there is a small proportion from accidental cause. Another study states that 80 percent of inmates who have
The last 18 years have been experienced by too many shootings. We must take action to help stop gun violence. In furtherance of reducing gun violence, we must handle the problem of easy access to guns and address men's mental health. One way to reduce gun violence is to regulate the easy access to guns. In the article," How to Reduce Shootings", by Nicolas Kristoff in The New York Times Kristoff claims how automobiles could kill as many people as guns but they don't because we regulate them and limit easy access to automobiles.