David DeGrazia proposes a moderate control of guns meaning that only individuals with a need for self-protection be allowed to own a gun and only after a complete course in safety (Hsiao and Berstein). DeGrazia also believes that owning a gun increases the likelihood that a person will be killed in their own home whether accidentally or intentionally (Hsiao and Berstein). The Democratic Party believes that stricter background checks will deter guns from being purchased by the wrong people. That might be true, but will it stop a violent person from committing a
Guns should only be used for appropriate activities like hunting, for example, but there is no one to stop people from harming others. She writes, “There are about 300 million guns in this country - nearly one for every man, woman, and child.” and “I am highly skeptical that reducing the number of guns will actually result in fewer mass killings.” In this passage, Dalmia is suggesting that even if there were to be a ban on guns, it would not help the fact that people are still going to use them for the wrong reasons. She states, “The grim lesson is this: There is nothing we can do to completely stop all killers at all times. The possibilities for mayhem are infinite. A society’s means to stop them are finite.
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.
Now making gun laws stricter will not mean the death rate or shootings will decrease right away because mainly the only people that go to a gun store to buy a gun are law abiding gun owners. A criminal will always have a weapon and a way to get more weapons, criminals do not follow the law. In Chicago, they have some of the strictest gun laws in America, but the shootings still increase; they have had at least 141 people shot and over 40 deaths since the start of 2018. No
Strict regulations and limitations have been pursued already and clearly do not suffice. Statics brought to attention by gun control opponents, show that gun control laws have done little to reduce crime rates. Several restrictions have been made on certain guns, considered as overly dangerous, though in the hands of an unstable criminal even a legal hunting gun can be deadly. Countless restrictions have been made, however people have still found ways around them. If people are unstable and determined enough, they will find a gun, regardless of the restrictions or regulations.
According to “Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives,” all of the weapons we own are far from keeping us safe. Guns are used to kill more than 30,000 Americans each year and injure approximately 70,000. Guns are also used to commit nearly 400,000 crimes each year. The rate of firearm violence in America far exceeds that of other industrialized nations, where gun ownership is strictly regulated. Although many people own guns for self-protection, studies have repeatedly shown that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of gun-related death or injury to a person living in the house.
People don’t want guns at all, but there will always be firearms weather they like it or not. The problem we have is the people who have the guns. “Gun control laws are just as old or older than the second amendment, the gun control wasn’t as strict as they are now. There still were laws, people were imprisoned if they were doing something illegal with firearms.” (Should more gun control laws be enacted) Mentally ill people are not allowed to own or purchase firearms. These people can be mentally unstable and end up doing something tragic and not even care.
The government should encourage people to own guns. Many violent incidents happened in the situation which victims do not have firearms to defend. Therefore, gun control would not reduce crime. Guns are tools, they cannot kill people, civilians are able to use guns for self-defense. Guns control laws are meaningless, prohibit guns cannot make people feel safer.
We are unable to tell whether Seung-Hui Cho's act of the mass killings could have been stopped but what we do know is that strict gun control laws do not always have the effect that lawmakers want to see. Having guns in the right hands can be influential in stopping crime and having fewer guns in the wrong hands can make for more crime. Therefore, this makes gun control not equivalent to crime
Since the start of Texas ‘Right-to-Carry’ law in 1995, the murder rate in Texas has averaged thirty-percent lower than before the law took effect (Gun Control Facts). In contrast, since 1950 almost every mass shooting (except for one) has taken place in a state that abides by strict gun control laws (5 Facts About the NRA). As James Earl Jones brilliantly said, “The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent, law abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.” Over the past twenty years gun sales have gone up and homicide rates committed with firearms have gone down by thirty percent.
Another reason I do not agree that the government should endorse stricter gun control measures is because I do not believe the gun in itself is the real issue. The real issue behind all the crimes and violence associated with guns is the owner of the gun. Results from multiple surveys stated that citizens of the U.S own around 300 million firearms. When asking those owners what they use their gun for, 67% said self-defense, 66% said hunting, and 41% said target shooting. A study showed that in 2000 guns were used for self-defense roughly 100,000 times a year.