Persuasive Argument Imagine that another world war broke out and you were chosen to fight and protect your country. What if a member of your family was diagnosed with depression except, no one knew how to treat them as we chose to forget all the bad symptoms that came from it? How about domestic issues that differ from country to country? Would you want to forget the despicable massacre that took place in Port Arthur? That massacre sparked the idea for tighter gun laws.
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.
We may believe that Bush made a poor decision. However, what alternative did he have? What alternative does Obama have? If we simply say the threat is the fear of tyranny from a president swollen with power from foreign wars, we miss the perverse result our constitution has created. In no small measure, our fear of an overly powerful president waging war abroad has had the unintended result that the government has to become more powerful and intrusive because America will not resolve the constitutional issue.
The shooter wants to inflict harm and pain to not only the victims, but parents, friends, family, and the nation as a whole. They intend to make others feel unsafe. The most effective way for them to accomplish this sinister goal is within a place that parents expect their children to be safe in. But what possesses the shooter to want to inflict this type of harm? Many factors, both internal and external, preventable and unavoidable, contribute to why school shootings occur so often in the United States and why we are forced to record more gun-related deaths than any other country.
Civilian firearms are for recreational activities such as hunting or shooting sports and self-defense (Cicconet, “Semi-automatic weapons unnecessary, unsafe in civilian hands”). The question on what to do about America’s gun control becomes the limelight of the stage every time national tragedy involving gun violence happens. According to Fred A. Roff Jr., president of the Colt Patent Fire Arms Co., he said, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” (E8). This is irrelevant in many ways. Many gun advocates question how banning the use of guns for the civilians in U.S. would help protect the civilians when there are so many other forms of weapons that can replace guns (Adcock, “Harvard study reveals gun control counterproductive).
There are people that complete training, that are responsible, and follow every rule in order to obtain a handgun for self protection, however, gun ban rips away that option of self defense to that individual. John Stossel (2008), who is a journalist and reporter for Fox News Channel, explains that when a laws is set against guns in reality they are setting laws against self-defense. When handguns are banned the problem isn’t solved, in the contrary, it created a bigger issue. It prevents citizens from getting a gun to defend themselves. Criminals will always find ways to get guns and banning handguns will certainly not stop them.
Regulating the amount of guns in the hands of American citizens, more guns preventing crime and the interpretation of the Second Amendment are all crucial topics in debating gun control. With less guns ownership, there would be a severe drop in homicides and other gun related deaths. Additionally, some contend more guns would associate with a lower crime rate. This is due to bystanders stepping in and stopping any potential crime or crime in progress. Lastly, the true meaning of the Second Amendment very controversial.
As a result of the extremely high number of school shootings, the debate about gun control is more relevant than ever before. It is also a debate there is very to have an opinion about and the politicians’ opinions are also very divided in 2 camps where the president is on the side where they want a stricter gun policy and the gun lobby and the people in the National Rifle Association does not want the law any stricter. Obama wants to save peoples life. To do that he wants to limit the capacity in the guns and he wants to ban the assault riffles. We can see that when he says “Congress should restore a ban on military style assault weapons and a 10 round limit for magazines.” and “Ask them (congress red.)
The Enlightenment was most likely caused by the Dark Ages which on religion instead of education. The Enlightenment emphasized reason and individualism rather than tradition. Today, America is not living up to the ideals of the Enlightenment because strict voter ID laws are making it harder for poor people to vote, the removal of the transgender bathroom law is having
This scenario could result in injuries or death. This is what our president has not thought about, after saying the guns would be “concealed on teachers” and “nobody would know who they are”. The National Rifle Association (NRA) says that the government should put more money towards treating mental illness and loosen the gun laws. Already the gun laws aren’t very strict and there is absolutely no reason for the laws to be any looser. Ten percent of states in the United States of America (USA), have strict gun laws and prohibit its citizens to openly carry firearms.