To demonstrate whether a person should own a firearm or not, Joe Messerli wrote an article to compare the pros and cons of owning a firearm. In favor of gun control he first, stated that the right to own a gun should be restricted because it would reduce crime. Second, those mental disabled persons, kids who are bullied and aggravated workers could cause a dangerous incident that would not have occurred if gun ownership was restricted. Third, a person who has a gun would be in more danger than a person without one against a criminal. Fourth, suicide and crimes of love or jealousy are more likely to occur easier with a firearm available.
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.
Positive Impact of Guns In America Americans have the privilege and the right to purchase and own personal firearms for the means of self defense. Some citizens, however, exploit this right for the sole purpose of harming those around them. Mass shootings are some of the most common and terrifying events that can happen to someone in America today. Despite all the harm that guns cause, they should not be banned because they also have many positive effects for the American people that we would not want to lose. One reason to keep guns in the hands of the people is fairly simple, but its impact is highly underestimated: guns stop criminals and in some cases prevent the crime before it even begins.
In the United States of America certain regulations are definitely necessary for public safety. The regulations are there to better the nation and not further control it. The government can not get rid of everyone 's right to own and keep a gun but, they can simply control the amount of guns able to be purchased. Therefore, the government is not taking away peoples guns but, simply regulating those who can or cant not own them to better protect the citizens of America. And thus any remarks about the government taking away peoples guns are untrue, the government is doing this for everyone 's well
Guns should not be allowed to be used to anyone, this can lead to serious consequences as these may be badly used for assaulting places or shootings. With stricter handgun laws and appropriate licensing, there shall be fewer casualties to save lives for a better society with no fear and safety for all. To start with, guns are risky objects that contradict the lives of people regardless of mental illness. Many
Gun violence occurs based on the unstable people in control of the gun not the gun itself. Likewise why should the government have to deal with these problems. The court system should not have to deal with these cases on gun violence they have more important problems to deal with. Court systems should not have to deal with unstable people who own and gun who have caused panic throughout their town or city. Stated in the article “10 Advantages and Disadvantages of Gun Control”, “ Funds could even be set aside so that licensing and safety classes are low-cost or free.” This shows the court could waste a lot of money funding gun classes when they could be funding something more important like schools or homes for homeless people.Along with this fact why should mentally unstable citizens own a gun in the first place.
The enforcement of stricter gun control laws would be extremely beneficial for the safety of the people in the United States. Stricter gun control laws would ensure guns do not fall in the hands of people who would misuse them. For example, individuals who are 21-years-old and below should not be given the right to own or be around guns. For if they are not allowed to legally drink alcohol, how can they be trusted with a weapon that can easily take a life within seconds.
I believe that due to recent shootings, we as America should do something to put an end to these shootings. I know that the difference between gun advocates versus gun control activists is that gun advocates have guns and know how to use them properly. Donald Trump has stated that to put an end to the shootings is not only due from obtaining a gun, but mental health. I also believe that it isn’t necessary to own a gun unless you’re using. I am torn between both sides, because half of the people feel more safe when they have a gun on hand, and the others feel more safe knowing that no one is in possession of a weapon.
John Moorhouse and Brent Wanner tackle the issue of gun control in their article “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control”, which was published in 2006 in the twenty-sixth volume of the Cato Journal. These researchers looked at the effects gun control laws had on violent crime and gun violence in the individual states. They found that these gun laws were very ineffective at reducing gun violence; they also suggest focusing on why gun laws are ineffective
The second amendment argument is a favorite topic for both sides of this argument. It can be used to help aid both sides of the gun control debate. Loopholes are another part of this grand argument, used by the side opposed to gun control, saying that loopholes are impossible to close, while the pro gun control side argues that stricter gun control and background checks make these loopholes not an issue. Both sides can be easily argued, but there is only one side that can save countless lives. Stricter gun control will work to pr otect citizens by limiting gun violence, keeping Second Amendment rights, and closing gun loopholes.
They conclude that “gun safety has proven to be effective against gun homicide” (NRA 2013). By educating the public, gun responsibility and safety will increase and lower gun crime without compromising gun ownership. Implementing mandatory gun safety courses for first time buyers and a safety test for current owners, Americans can buy guns and also be educated in the responsibility that comes with gun ownership. This measure could potentially save local governments money as well since law enforcement would not need to spend time prosecuting gun violators due to negligence. In addition, gun education would also reform the way people think of guns, from the stereotypical gun toting violent individual to the educated, informed gun owner.
Studies done after the sandy hook shooting have found that, “ Contrary to pro-gun lobby claims, research into prevention of gun violence has shown that reasonable reforms could reduce the excessively high rates of firearm deaths in the US while preserving access firearms, possession is not illegal for people proposed do not infringe on law abiding citizens ',” (Vittes 6). This has two main point to it, the first and most clearly is that it is irrelevant on what one 's believes might be, reasonable gun control will save Americans lives. The more subtle meaning behind this study was that gun lobby 's push the agenda that their companies are protected by right. The gun manufacturing business is no small group of occupations. They receive money by having customers purchases firearms, which they donate to political parties to pass different legislation.
A decrease in incidence of gun-related violence has also decreased in the US during the time when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was in effect. There are two arguments dominating the gun control issue. The anti-gun control people believes that the problem is with the people not with the guns and imposing heavier sanctions, harsher punishments on criminals, and more armed guards should solve the problem of gun violence. On the other hand, the pro-gun control people argues that the easy accessibility of firearms directly correlates gun-related violence and mass shooting (Lemieux, 2014). Both arguments have its merits, but in dealing with the gun control issue, it is important to put ethics and public health implications into consideration (Boylan,
I agree with Mr. Kristof, gun violence has been ignored enough by the government and should be one of the governments priorities. Removing guns from America is too radical and “politically impossible” with some americans, yet Kristof finds a perfect balance with introducing “universal background checks,” “limits on gun purchases,” and “more research” on how to save lives from gun violence (Kristof). I admire how Kristof’s argument finds compromise between gun control supports and negators, for removing guns from the U.S. permanently would be unconstitutional and a violation of inalienable rights. I strongly agree that America should rectify gun laws since there are a plethora of people “waiting to go boom” and are qualified to get their “hands” on unrestricted weapons. The American government would save a multitude of lives if it were attentive with gun
The CX design study compares different legal jurisdictions with each other to determine if one area has lower gun violence than another with similar gun control laws. Controlling the presence and absence of other gun laws is important because residents that favor one-gun controller are more likely to like another one. It is also important to