It talks about that even though cars kill many people every year they are not banned, so why should guns be banned. The texts are mainly against banning guns, but the first debater believes that running background checks are important for the safety. Another point of view on this matter is given in text 2 by the third debater, where the writer argues for banning guns. The debater supports this argument by
Brooks goes on to quote writer Tali Sharot to support his argument, which suggests that ““better facts tend to be counterproductive on hot-button issues like gun control.” As Tali Sharot notes in her book “The Influential Mind,” when you present people with evidence that goes against their deeply held beliefs, the evidence doesn’t sway them. Instead, they invent more reasons their prior position was actually correct. The smarter a person is, the greater his or her ability to rationalize and reinterpret discordant information, and the greater the polarizing boomerang effect is likely to be” (Brooks,
Citizens need to stand up and not take the blame for other individuals who choose to inflict harm. Law-abiding citizens should not be penalized for the actions of a few deranged people. It is true some weapons do not belong in the hands of untrained people, and the National Rifle Association has been instrumental in pushing for responsibility and safety on the part of gun owners without imposing too much on the Second Amendment right (Kopel). Critics such as David DeGrazia of George Washington University argue that private ownership of handguns leads to more social harms than it prevents (Hsiao and Bernstein). 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).
One major method of using biased word choice by mainstream media, is the exclusion of words that might give an idea that goes against the media’s beliefs. One taboo phrase is “gun control.” The word control is inferred as to government overreach and this will leave a space for
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
Ethical arguments for gun rights center on the right of security, civic duty, and constitutional right of the people. Those in favor of gun control focus on the human toll, loss of life, and the distortion of what the Second Amendment’s original intent. Hope for change and improvement in this issue is a long shot at best due to each side becoming more entrenched within their belief system. Framing the violence in America as a mental health issue distracts from the fact that we do indeed have a gun problem in America. The guns in of themselves do not present the issue, it is the access, supply, and the operation of these weapons that bring this issue to the forefront every time one watches the news or reads a newspaper.
Peter Tucci, a free-lance journalist form the Daily Caller, argues against the establishment of more gun-control saying that it is not efficacious, widespread gun ownership protects citizens, and that gun control does not ensure the safety of the public. However, there is extensive research that suggests that the very opposite is true. The implementation of stricter gun control laws is now more important than ever because they are they are an effective means to reduce crimes and widespread gun ownership is deleterious to the safety of the public. The most frequently used argument against gun-control is that these laws simply are not effective. This is far from the truth as gun control has actually been shown to lower crimes rates.
More specifically, I believe that gun violence will always be an issue whether they are banned or not. If someone plans on hurting someone, they will not care about rules. For example, Guns are very easy for people to buy, but how is the seller going to know what they plan to do with it. It is not like they are going to say that they are going to kill someone with it. Therefore, I conclude that banning guns is not worth it because people who want to use them for negative reasons will even if they are banned.
It suggests that the government, but more specifically Congress, puts gun violence above the means of fighting against it. Even more so, it shows that gun violence reins over attempts to hinder it in any way and how Congress is weak because it consistently fails to effectively do anything about gun violence in America. However, congressional gridlock can be more than Congress’ refusal to pass laws that are important The United States’ wellbeing. It can be the slow-moving process of passing a law or bill to benefit Americans. For example, immigration reform has been being considered since past President Barack Obama was reelected in 2012, as stated by The Washington Post (Nakamura, O’Keefe 4).
While people are arguing that having firearms is a good choice for their own security, others argue that a gun control can be dangerous. So, individuals should not be allowed to own guns because in some cases it can result in a deplorable situation. In addition , The United States of America is one of the most dangerous related about gun control, recent reports had shown that there are 88 guns for every 100 people living there without adding the arms of the black market. They do not have an effective firearm tracker method to make sure that the weapons do not reach with dangerous hands. According to Bonnie Schaefer “ It is not just keeping the guns out of the hands of mentally ill people and criminals ...