Rhetorical Analysis Of Our Blind Spot About Guns

Gun control has been an unabating issue of controversy in the U.S. and many other countries. The question at hand is, do guns benefit citizens and or do they harm them more than they help each be safe? The citizens of the United States have lived with firearms in our society since the founding of this great country. It’s part of the American fabric of this great nation that has become engrained in our culture. However, some in our country have begun to question whether owning a firearm should actually be a right. Terrorism, public shootings, and suicides have sparked the fuse that is gun control. Our government has persistently tried to pass laws and regulations to restrict gun ownership, but not all have succeeded.

The ineffectiveness of gun control is quite evident in the United States. Gun rights have been an ongoing social battle for many years (Kopel). People will always find a way to gain access to weapons if the person wants one badly enough. The United States is fast approaching the halfway mark in favor of stricter gun laws; however, the nation still questions the effectiveness of gun control. Republicans support the right to own, use, and carry guns as stated in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (Kopel). Republicans also believe it is an individual’s right to protect family and property through gun ownership. Gun laws should be left to the individual states

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,

Guns are crucial in American society. This is something many advocates of the 2nd Amendment and gun possession have been stating for decades. Although many believe that they have their own ideas about gun control in the US, they are not aware that their opinions are being influenced by biased media agencies. Not only is there pressure from the government, mass media cogitates their broadcasting information so that the public gets center minded by their theories, not leaving space for people to think in their own ways. An unbiased journalism is practically impossible, and this is proved and established by analyzing the truth of gun control news transmitted towards the public. With this in mind, there were three fundamental and major similarities in the schemes, consisting of word choice, exaggeration, and reporting of complete falsehood, between mainstream media that manipulate the public and maximize the biased coverage.

As the lives of seventeen students were taken away this valentine's day, in the most recent school shooting at Douglas High School, great controversy has erupted on the topic of gun control in America. Teens and parents across the world, have come together to protest the broken system that has greatly devastated so many families. As the discussion of gun control spreads, many turn to the NRA and political leaders to blame, but are these the people at fault? In the article, America's Unique Gun Violence Problem Explained in 17 Maps and Charts, German lopez writes, “ America has 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world.” These statistics explain americas lead in gun ownership well supported by both the NRA and the U.S second amendment. As the shootings increase so do the issues. People now question raising age restrictions on gun ownership,performing mental and regular background checks, or arming teachers. In all this debate most people can agree that this is not a two sided issue.The

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.

Enshrined in the United States Constitution, there is perhaps no debate that permeates the contemporary socio political landscape with as much fervor as the right to bear arms. In recent times, the rise of gun violence has brought the issue of gun control to the forefront of political discourse. Gun control has been hotly contested by political leaders, liberal and conservative adults, and even teenagers in high school. While there are many articles online regarding this topic that appear to be reliable prima facie, not all of them prove to be credible under closer scrutiny. Although everyone has their own opinion with respect to gun control, some news articles choose not to consider all the factual evidence that is readily available or see

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. They fear that they will not be able to protect themselves on a daily basis, or in a worse case scenario, protect themselves if the government happened to turn on citizens of the country. They would also argue that people, especially criminals, can still find ways to gain access to guns. Guns should not be banned in the United States due to them being able

"In the 1960's, there was one school shooting. In the 1980's, there were 27. In the 1990's, there were 58. In the past decade, there have been over 120" (Hoehn). 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.

A weapon in the wrongs hands is the maximum danger humanity can face. Nowadays, violence and delinquency in society are viewed as the maximum problem solver. Humanity is full of chaos; hate and envy seize our souls. Guns are the ultimate security for some citizens but for others, these add to a feeling of defenselessness. Throughout history, any topic related to guns means a plethora of problems. One of the most controversial issues our nation faces today is gun control laws. This controversy has been created due to the different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution which states the right of citizens to bear arms; “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (Cornell Law School). Anti-gun control laws believe that the amendment guarantees the right to bear any kind of firearms. On the other hand, we have does that believe that more controls laws should be implemented since the 2nd amendment was for the right of States to have an armed militia during wartime. Both sides have strong point, however, the safety of our children comes first, and a firearm means death in the wrong hands.

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. Gun control also limits our constitutionally derived right to own firearms. If gun control is enforced, law-abiding citizens will be forced to give up their guns and their right to own guns, while many criminals who own guns may illegally keep theirs. As the saying goes “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Guns are an important aspect of our society in many ways. They allow for protection, recreation, and hunting. They also do not have as many negative effects as some claim. The right to own firearms is a constitutional right that is important and needs to be upheld.

Moorhouse and Wanner, in their article “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control”, studied whether or not gun control reduced gun violence in individual states. The overarching theme throughout the individual states is that gun control doesn’t reduce gun violence and is very ineffective. The authors provide two possible reasons why these laws are ineffective; 1) these laws do not effect criminal behavior and their efforts to obtain weapons illegally, and 2) these laws focus on normal gun purchases and don 't account for private sales and guns passed down through families.

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. They found that these gun laws were very ineffective at reducing gun violence; they also suggest focusing on why gun laws are ineffective

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. Although there are rules and regulations already in place there still is a lot of crime occurring, because laws on gun

Kristof employs three rhetorical devices to bolster his argument. First, a specific example of Australia handling shootings in a sincere efficient way.Revering Australia, Kristof notes that Australia’s “homicide rate was almost halved” by the country enforcing “tougher firearm restrictions” (Kristof).Therefore America should mimic Australia’s example and introduce stern gun laws to protect U.S. citizens. Second, he appears to logos while illuminating the fact that America has more regulation on objects that contribute less to death of Americans than guns. Logically, he persuades that America “should address gun deaths as a public health crisis”