February 14, 2018 a day of love turned into a day of hate. At Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, 17 people were killed and many more injured. This traumatic incident could have been stopped. There are two sides to the prevention of the shooting. One is gun control the other is school sentinels. Sentinels are a soldier or guard whose job is to stand and keep watch. The sentinels in the school would be the teachers. Although sentinels could save numerous lives, gun control is the smartest and safest way to protect students in the classroom. Gun control with the literal word “control” in it is exactly what the classroom needs. Maureen Downey and Matthew Boedy, “Data Show Campus Carry Is Unwise and Unnecessary,” claim carrying …show more content…
Antonia Okafor, “Why I bring my gun to School,” claims that she wants to assure her safety with a gun. Okafor states, “I felt empowered to be holding a tool that could protect me physically, and I was determined how to use it responsibly.”(par 7). She uses real life experience to persuade her audience which is an example of pathos. Okafor touches on the topic of protection for women, “I have met so many women through my gun advocacy who felt helpless in the face of sexual assault before they carried a weapon - they felt that no one would listen to them, that they didn’t have any options … Even if one out of five statistic is imprecise, isn’t one assaulted woman bad enough?”(par 10). Okafor uses the issue of women’s rights to compare her topic to. She wants women to know that they can protect themselves and be stronger than the attacker. Okafor then addresses political parties on the issue, “Many liberals - including many female professors my organization approached as potential sponsors for Empowered - don’t support a woman’s ‘right to choose’ when it comes to her own self-defense. They can’t get behind a vision of female empowerment that doesn’t match their own.”(par 12). She feels that guns will empower women and have them develop confidence in themselves. She knows what is going on in the world and she uses that to tell women that there is a way to stand up for yourselves and others. Putting yourself first could save …show more content…
Boedy writes, “Now, gun advocates will rightly say in general many crimes go unreported. But I must ask, are there students or faculty in Georgia who have used a gun to stop crime? If so, why -- particularly in the case of attempted rape or robbery -- wouldn’t that gun owner report to campus police they had thwarted such crimes? Wouldn’t the rest of us need that information?”(par 12). He ponders on the argument that not all crimes are reported. He proves this wrong by making opposers think, “would a victim tell someone that they stopped a crime from happening, or they were threatened, or assaulted by someone?” He makes it clear that it's likely for someone to report something to a police. He then takes that other side of pro-gun and shows them why they are wrong. Boedy rebuts by saying, “Or consider the ‘pro-gun’ scholars at the Cato institute who searched news accounts and found 5,000 incidents of self-defense use of a gun from 2003 to 2011. But they found that only 285 of those people had a concealed carry license, aka the ‘good guys’ gun advocates consistently tells us we need more of.”(par 9). He confirms the opposing view wrong by addressing what they think and saying here's why you’re wrong. The facts are present and they overrule the
In “Stop Worrying About Guns in the Classroom. They’re Already here.” the author, Erik Gilbert, argues in favor of the law allowing the concealed carry of firearms in college campuses. Gilbert claims that it’s futile to be “worried by the prospect of having guns in [the] classroom” because he believes that even before the bill was passed, some students and faculty were already carrying firearms to campus (Gilbert). Furthermore, he insinuates that despite the presence of firearms, there were no incidents of student or faculty causing harm. To support his argument, the author provides incidents which have occurred over the last decade at his campus, such as accidental discharge of guns in dorms, firearms in student’s vehicles, and one faculty member who was discovered to be in possession of a gun in an on-campus facility. Considering these incidents and previous knowledge of “prevailing regional attitudes towards guns”, the author assumes that significant numbers of students, and possibly faculty, bring guns on campus regularly (Gilbert). As for those who are afraid due to the new law, he declares to them that firearm permit-holders are not dangerous by comparing the rate of their crimes to that of police officers. He also reasons that permit holders need to be at least 21 to qualify—claiming that the more mature students qualify—and have background checks performed.
The excerpt of “A Peaceful Woman Explains Why She Carries A Gun” is a personal account from Linda Hasselstrom on why she feels the need to carry a gun as well as, why other women should feel the need to own a gun. Hasselstrom uses rhetorical appeals in order to justify her means of security, however she fails due to her inability to provide a substantial amount of background knowledge.
A. According to the Brady Foundation, one of the leading campaigns to end gun violence. 36% of the nation, 18 of 50 states, impose a waiting period.. (prevent crimes of passion, no background check, not able to check if buyer is prohibited or not to purchase.)
He demonstrates when guns are found in every household, gun control can do little to restrict access to guns from potential criminals. (McMahan, 3) So, McMahan’s main premises comes into play, either everyone has guns, including criminals, or nobody has guns. “Gun advocates prefer for both rather than neither to have them” McMahan remarks, but ultimately that will just leave the country open to more violence and tragedies. “As more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes a matter of self help, and the unarmed have an incentive to get guns.” (McMahan, 2) Now everyone is armed, and everyone has the ability to kill anyone in an instant, making everyone less secure. Just as all the states would be safer if nobody were to possess the nuclear weapons, our country would be safer if guns were banned from private individuals and criminals.
The second amendment grants all Americans the right to bear arms. The ability to hold a firearm at any time as long as the firearm is registered. In the United states, all it takes to hold a firearm is a background check and a safety class. In a short reading from the “American Now” book a short article By Christina Tenuta called Responsible gun ownership saves lives she asks “do Americans really need guns?”, but are the guns really the problem? Although the second amendment requires some decent documents , the qualifications to obtain a firearm needs to be revised to a mental check, a family history check , and also to make it a priority for reinforcement to check on the registered firearm every six to twelve months.
In December 2014, an elementary school was attacked by an armed gunman. The shooter’s name was Adam Lanza. He killed twenty first graders and six faculty members before he took his own life in favor of being arrested (CNN).... ... middle of paper ...
Specific Purpose Statement: To persuade my audience that each individual must take responsibility for his or her own actions. The must not blame guns for problems caused by people. .
Specific Purpose: To persuade the audience that any attempt by the government to control guns should not be supported
Eighty-nine people die from gun violence in the United States every day according to the Brady Campaign , from school children to victims of domestic violence to people going about their daily lives. As we mourn the lives of those killed in incidents of gun violence across the country, we need to take action. We should all do everything in our power to keep tragedies like this from happening again. When it comes to addressing mass shootings, we need new answers
Molly Ivins argues against the common ownership of guns in America is pointless, and that it will only result in negative consequences. In her column, she argues against the common ownerships of guns in America by pointing out that the second amendment’s original intent does not configure with current forms of gun ownership. She argues there are several impracticalities that have evolved from the legal doctrines of gun ownership. She argues against the use of guns by offering substitutes to the reasons why people own guns in the first place. One of her biggest arguments for the substitution of guns is to use a knife instead, and she begins to explain why a knife can be a better fit for the reasons people typically like to own guns.
For many years, America has witnessed mass shootings within it’s borders. In 2015 alone, there were 372 mass shootings (Oldham). The question most Americans are faced with is: do we need more gun control or is gun control the problem? With more gun control, it can be made mandatory that protective devices are used on firearms to prevent accidental harm. Gun control creates mandatory laws such as the requirement for an individual to pass a background check before he/she is permitted to purchase a firearm. Gun control has also been proven to prevent suicides due to the increased difficulty of obtaining a firearm. Those who believe that gun control is the problem claim that by removing one 's firearms, you are endangering them to threats that
Gun rights are the source of much controversy in today’s society. People have been skeptic after the multiple shootings that happened in the past few years. Recently, the NRA has been under constant threat by Congress. Background checks are not effective as planned. In order to keep the gun rights, changes need to be made in order to prevent gun control from being created.
Along with many other reasons, guns do not need any more restrictions. No one seems to be taking into account all of the other means of deaths and the death tolls of those actions. Many of the murders in the United States are committed with a variety of resources such as hammers and clubs, drugs, and even vehicles. According the FBI crime files, in 2006 the amount of deaths executed with clubs and hammers were 618, meanwhile the amount of murders rifles were used in was only 438 (Hawkins, “FBI: More People killed…”). This clearly portrays that rifles are not as much of a problem as it may seem. It shows that something so simplistic and common can cause more deaths than a sophisticated rifle. No matter what the weapon may be, simple or complex,
Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible. -Hubert Humphrey, 1960 My background is probably atypical for a somewhat high-profile supporter of the right to keep and bear arms. I am black and grew up in Manhattan’s East Harlem, far removed from the great American gun culture of rural, white America.
There is nothing wrong about protecting yourself, but we have to make sure that the weapons we use to protect ourselves don 't get to the wrong people. " The debate about gun control is a global issue. However, it is more intense in the United States of America than any other region (‘Gun Control’ par 1). The groups against gun control show concern about violent crime and they don’t perceive gun control is the answer to violence committed using guns. However, they support strict laws against gun-related crimes and better enforcement of those laws. On the other hand, those who support gun control are of the opinion that background checks are