"Just Take Away Their Guns" is an effective argument than "I Want a Wife." James Wilson gives a more factual, organizational and better language used argument than Judy Brady.
In "I Want a Wife" Brady is stereotypical of what she believes to be the roles of the husband and wife. Also Brady's essay is one sided, she never states a side that would argue her viewpoint. While Wilson shows two clearly stated sides of his argument.
The first reason as to why ?Just Take Away Their Guns? is more effective is because the essay has more specifics and facts that can?t be refutable. The president wants more gun control but the public says the laws will fail who is right? And in deciding who is right will any of our amendments be taken away or shortened? Taking away the right to be able to buy and own a gun will have hardly any effect on the illegal use of guns. Wilson states that there are 200 million guns in private ownership, about one-third of them handguns. Of the 200 million handguns that are owned, only 2 percent of the population is allowed to commit a crime. Out of the 200 million guns, about one-sixth of them, are bought legally through either a gun or pawn shop. Many of the current handguns owned, are stolen, borrowed, or obtained through private purchases that wouldn?t be affected by gun laws states Wilson. If there was a successful effort to take away or to shrink the amount of legally purchased weapons or accessories (ammunition) then what happened to our right to bear arms? Isn?t self defense a key part in our time? If so many guns are stolen, then how is taking away the legal guns going to help? It is not, because people will always find ways to get a gun no matter the restrictions set upon it. Although Wilso...
... middle of paper ...
...e of her duties is to care for the kids, and to obey the husband?s wishes of privacy and sex. While Wilson never uses any sarcasm in his essay to portray what he wants the readers to know and understand. Wilson gives logical and understandable reasons which can easily be seen with no rebuttal.
In conclusion this is why I firmly believe that Wilson has a more coherent and cohesive, well stated, argument than Judy?s by no stretch of the imagination. Wilson?s thoughtful process in coming up with an essay that was factual, organizational, and had good use of language is why this argument is so well written. Judy?s essay is undeniably poorly written, to an extent to which a child may right. All in all, ?Just Take Away Their Guns? Wilson has captured the attention of the audience that is unmatched in Judy?s. So all I say is that, ?Guns do kill, people don?t?.
In his article “Gun debate? What gun debate?” Mark O 'Mara discuses the controversial issue of gun control. O’Mara takes the tragic school shooting in Oregon as an opportunity to voice his opinion on the debate of guns. He clearly states his position and explains that gun violence has increased enormously because of the lack of command by the government and support from the public to speak out against it. O’Mara claims the issue is no longer a debate because it is so evident that guns have become a significant problem in this country and therefore actions must be taken to control and govern gun laws. In his article he attempts to raise awareness to the severity of the issue and tries to persuade his readers to take a stance against gun violence
In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of growing violence, rife with turmoil and crime, gun advocates feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the Free” possessing a gun is a fundamental right, and may even be a necessity... Anti- gun lobbyists point to the same growing violence and gun related crimes in an effort to call on the government to take action. By enacting more laws and stricter control, these people not in favor of guns feel society would be better safer.
Edelman 's purpose in writing this essay is to show two sides: she wants to show the reader how her husband has abandoned her, but also cares to inform the perfect ideal of marriage that everyone grows up with is not completely achievable. Furthermore, Edelman wants the reader to feel sympathy for her situation and understand why it has taken such a toll on her life. She uses anecdotal evidence from her own life and how she handles the situations to get this point across. This choice impacts the article by creating a one sided slant because she never interviews her husband to find out how he is feeling about the situation. Edelman blames her husband for working more hours and not being around to help with the parenting, like they were supposed to be doing together. She explains how before her husband began working crazy hours, she too, was a working mother, but now the more and more hours he works, the more she needs to be present at home. Edelman says, “It began to make me spitting mad, the way the daily duties of parenting and home ownership started to rest entirely on me.” (53). She feels betrayed by her husband
Joseph Sobran argues that, “there are solid constitutional arguments against gun control. For one thing, nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the right to limit an individual's right to own firearms”. He states that the government has no right to limit guns. Even though he has a point there is a limit to that statement such as serious criminals and mentally unstable people. Likewise Sharon Harris states that guns protect people against criminals, “the right to bear arms protects the individual from violent aggressors and from the ineffective protection state and federal government is offering its citizens … criminals benefit from gun control laws that make it more difficult for ordinary citizens to protect themselves.” She believes that guns keep people safe and that regulating guns will only benefit criminals. This is not true because regulations help prevent criminals from getting guns. Having less regulations is a dangerous
Wilson makes strong points to show that marriage is good for human interaction, he fails to mention the aspects of marriage that take a toll on someone. He says that “our desire for sexual unions and romantic attachments is as old as humankind, and they will continue forever.”(431), but he does not state that marriage takes hard work and that it is not easy as pie.. The only negative point he focuses on is the financial aspect of marriage, when it is much more than that. When speaking about cohabitation, he states that it is merely a form of being single. He does not touch on the aspects of how it may progress to marriage; he simply says it will end within two years, again with no references to back this up. Wilsons attempts to convince the reader that marriage is the only way they will be able to stay in love because the incentive to stay together is much higher than living in cohabitation because you have invested that much more. He states that living in cohabitation “… I stop loving you; I walk away.” He continues saying that he fails to write about the house they could be renting, or even bought together and many other investments that people are living together purchase and pay for, even if it is
In "Just Take Away Their Guns," author James Q. Wilson argues that "Legal restraints on the lawful purchase of guns will have little effect on the illegal use of guns" (Wilson 63). Wilson points out that it would be tough to remove all legally purchased guns from the streets and nearly impossible to confiscate illegally purchased guns. Gun advocate J. Warren Cassidy argues that "The American people have a right 'to keep and bear arms'. This right is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. . ." in an article titled "The Case for Firearms" (Cassidy 275). James B. Jacobs and Kimberly A. Potter wrote in an article called "Keeping guns out of the "wrong" hands: the Brady law and limits of regulations" that "US law enforcement should concentrate on stiff sentences for crimes committed with guns and recognize that gun control laws do not keep guns from the wrong people" (Jacobs and Potter 1 of 27). Daniel B. Polsby, author of "The false promise: gun control and crime," simply states, "Gun control laws don't work" (Polsby 1 of 11). Polsby feels that "gun control laws are ineffective because [they] have not been proven to be a deterrent to crime" (1 of 11). James D. Wright states, in his article "Second Thoughts about Gun Control," that "If there were fewer guns around, there would also be less crime and less violence" (Wright 93). More gun control laws will only make it a hassle for law abiding citizens to purchase guns. They will not keep guns out of the criminal's hands because they have other methods of obtaining guns, such as the secondary market which is the illegal sale of firearms. Another reason why more gun control legislation will backfire is that those who want to purchase guns to protect themselves a...
...n promoting stricter gun laws, government needs to find out what is causing the problem and addressing it. Parents need to take into consideration what video games there children are playing and which movies they are watching. Spending too much time examining and enforcing stricter gun laws can be costly, while taxpayer’s wealth money can be used on drug warfare or other beneficial objectives for the country. An alternative for strict guns law is a stiffer prison sentences for individuals who commit a crime with a firearm and therapy for the mentally ill. Wayne LaPierre introduced the famous quote “Guns do not kill people, people kill people.” The quote demonstrates that firearms cannot kill an individual without a human intervention. Rather than screening firearms in a negative light, individual should change the concept of human nature from violence to peaceful.
By appealing to several different views, Wheeler is able to grab every reader’s attention. Using schools as his focus point grabs the reader’s attention on a personal level. A school is a place where your children, your friends, your spouses all could be, and we still aren’t motivated to change our gun control laws. Tragic events do not have to happen like those that occurred at Virginia Tech, The Jewish Day care in Los Angeles, and Pearl High School. Wheeler believes concealed carry should be allowed in every school. Let’s make the students and teachers of these schools and colleges their own heroes. Wheeler says we must embrace all of the varied disciplines contributing to preparedness and response. We must become more willing to be guided and informed of empirical finding. School officials base policies on irrational fears. Wheeler states, “What is actually worse, the fear of what we think might happen, or the massacres that actually did occur?” Wheelers essay is very well thought out and uses fear, credibility, and factual evidence to support his beliefs. My belief is we should allow teachers and students to have guns at schools, as long as they have gone through training to do
The issue of gun control has always been a hot topic among the American public. Most everyone, if asked, will tell you that gun control is an issue needed to be dealt with because of the event that took place at Columbine High School back on April 20th, 1999. The American public has been wrestling with gun control long before then. If we take a look back at August 1st, 1966 at the University of Texas, a man armed with a hunting rifle committed one of the most violent mass murders in history. Gun control refers to the Government placing restrictions on the American public to buy, own and sell firearms. If we read the constitution, our second amendment right is the right to bear arms. This has been the ongoing controversy of this issue. We the people say our constitutional right to buy and own firearms is being seized from us. The government is using our society’s violent incidents as cover to place restrictions and bans on firearms. This essay’s purpose is to provide proof that buying and owning firearms is our legal constitutional right and that our government is trying to attack the wrong angle when trying to fight crime involving guns in the United States.
Gun Control has become a very important and controversial issue in america today. Many citizens of this great country are beginning to question if guns are as useful or if they’re just cold metal death makers. Gun Control: The Great Cop-out by Jared Michaud and Gun Control and the Constitution by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman professionally carry across their anti-gun control ideals; whereas The Second Amendment is all for Gun Control by Adam Winkler and Making Gun Control Happen by Patrick Radden Keefe display the pro-gun control side. In my views, guns are a very necessary tool that if used correctly can be a valuable source of self defence and protection when help is too far away, or unwilling to come. Rather than put more restrictions on guns and gun owners, we should be able to freely protect ourselves and our fellow man.
The right to bear arms has been an important conversation in America for decades. As of recent tragedies such as the Sandy Hook shooting and the Aurora Colorado Theater shooting, the debate is more heated than ever. From large-scale massacres to single fatality shootings, gun violence is unwarranted and heartbreaking. However, the Second Amendment protects individual citizens’ right to own firearms: “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,” it states (Bill of Rights). Although this part of the Bill of Rights has not been changed in United States’ history, some citizens argue that, because the Constitution is a working document, this should be adapted to fit current needs and protect communities. Citizens who wish tip the scale in favor of the community’s protection argue that guns are dangerous, easy to access, popular weapons that allow disgruntled or mentally unstable citizens to “inflict mass causalities” and were originally only intended for use in a militia (Joe Messerli). On the other hand, those who wish to benefit civilians argue that taking away guns restrains individual liberty and that gun control would prove futile because criminals would find ways such as the black market to obtain guns, weapons can serve as self-defense prevent crimes, and reasonable restrictions would be more effective than an outright ban (Joe Messerli). Both arguments have valid, well developed ideas, and both sides tend to be passionate in debate.
Showalter, Amy. ‘Five Reason the NRA won the recent gun control debate that have nothing to
There are three ways to approach gun-control: first, it is the citizens’ constitutional right to own firearms; second, firearms kill - get rid of them; and third, to have no opinion and not deal with the issue. Whichever view people have on gun-control, they must first understand the facts and statistics of these issues. Charlton Heston’s “Is Freedom Lost on the Next Generation?” and Paul Craig Robert’s “Unarmed and Unsafe” both study the opposing side of gun-control with facts and logic.
In modern society, what a marriage is expected to be composed of is a hard working husband that provides for his family and a stay at home wife who settles to raise their children. In the story The Angel Over the Right Shoulder, it is obvious that this family fits into the stereotype. Mrs. James is being torn between fulfilling her role as a housewife and pursuing her dream of becoming a writer. In order to fix her problem she seeks the support of her husband. Mr. James thinks of a plan and proposes it in order to help Mrs. James not only continue supporting the household, but also to give her time to persevere her writing, and she promises to follow it. Although Mr. James claims to be supportive of his wife, his actions are contradicting. He insinuates that she has plenty of time to pursue
What is the need for gun control? The necessity of gun control is one of the most debatable topics today, and one of the reason for gun control is to get the guns out of the wrong hands. 33 million Americans own firearms for hunting, but hunting is not the sole reason for which many citizens of America purchase firearms. Of all countries, the United States is one of the top countries that is troubled by a large number of criminals who are in possession of guns even without registrations. According to the FBI report for the year 2013 the amount of murders (not counting robberies or any other violent crimes that involved firearms) in that year alone added up to 8,454, and for the year 2014 the amount rose to 9,275. That is an 821 point increase