Molly Ivins Analysis

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.

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,

Alexis Clarke Professor Frank English 110 29 October 2015 Gun Control Will Not Eliminate Crime The big issue of gun control in the United States, is that many people believe that it takes away the 2nd Amendment rights, which is the right to bear arms. Citizens of the United States are promised the the right to bear arms in the Constitution, and by applying gun control laws takes away that same right. Crime is high enough in cities with very few laws pertaining to gun control, but taking guns away from people who are registered with license will not solve the problem either. Placing more limitations on gun owners, particularly responsible gun owners, will not reduce gun violence.

The use of and the owning of guns is a very hot and debated topic in society today. For many, this is a life and death debate due to the recent and numerous school shootings. These school shootings have caused an outcry for more gun control, specifically in relation to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Despite these calls, increased gun control is not the answer. Most gun owners’ use their guns responsibly and for good purposes.

Moreover, guns are ineffective for self-defense in many situations. In other words, the risks outweigh the potential advantages by far. Moreover, what is right should not be abandoned, only because it is difficult to implement. It is time that the ownership of guns is restricted to those who need them for professional reasons. The result would be a safer and better

Gun Control Gun control is a major argument in today’s society. When discussing guns, most are highly against them. Not only are they used for a defense mechanism but are also used to provide a source of food to the public. Whether being a complete ban or people being forced to get a background check in order to purchase an armed weapon. While guns are banned, people will look for anyway they can to use guns, which leads to stealing and more possible deaths or injuries.

As the ideal utilitarian approach focuses on the concept that the good will outweigh the bad, the good through gun control is easily identified through the way it will reduce the amount of violence as the restrictions of guns will reduce casualties. This has become the fundamental argument for the proponent camp where it is also seen how proponents argue the fact that “guns kill people” following cases of gun violence. As seen in the example of the cases that are ongoing in Baltimore, Maryland and Compton, California, these represents the clear fact that gun control is needed. The society will be a better place and it will be in the interest of the overall society for gun control to be needed. The clear advantages and good will be shown through the reduction of gun violence.

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.

Mental Health is a bigger issue than guns, and mental health will be regulated and not guns if the authority and the government want killings to stop occurring. Taking away guns will not stop killings with guns. People will find other ways to kill people, because people if they want to kill, will kill. Some argue that the guns need to be taken away because guns take away Innocent people’s lives. However, the real reason people are killed by guns is that of the people using the gun.

Many pro gun-control citizens believe that banning firearms will make them safer and some even protest. For reasons of self-defense, to assist the police, and because violence will always be present, the United States’ law regarding the legality of firearms should stay in place. One of the many uses of firearms is self-defence. “Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals

Today in the United States of America, the gun control is the top issue. Over 350 people die from gun shooting accidents, which results in the president to review the second amendment, the right to carry a concealed handgun (“Police one” internet). The citizens of the United States find it their right to bear arms, however guns get in the wrong hands. In order to carry a weapon, people must have a weapon license, and required an intensive background check to obtain the weapon. More often than not concealed handguns have a negative effect on society than positive.

This will stop a lot of gun crimes that happen in America today. Gun should be sold to people for protection and hunting.” These people believe that gun restrictions should happen to prevent people who are going to use them for evil. These discussions are taking place because situations like robbing, massacres, and random shootings kill many people. This can affect gun owners in the United States because they could ban a particular type of gun.

Instead of banning or limiting guns, the evidence will show that removing the current restrictions and targeting individuals instead of guns will be a more effective process. The topic of gun control has two polarized opinions. One such opinion targets the individuals responsible for the crime, instead of just the weapons. 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.

This paper also provides an interesting solution to gun violence; instead of already proven ineffective gun control laws, these authors suggest looking at why these laws are ineffective. Planty, Michael, and Jennifer

First and foremost, banning guns will not stop criminals from obtaining and committing crimes with them. Furthermore, guns don’t kill people; people kill people. Lastly, guns prevent the government from becoming tyrannical and oppressive. At first, one may think that banning guns would be a superb solution to the growing problem of gun violence.