In a world full of hatred and hostility, gun control may seem like an easy fix to the ongoing issue of mass shootings and murders in the United States, but in reality placing restrictions on guns will not eliminate the problem entirely. Nicholas Kristof argues about this issue in his article, “A New Way to Tackle Gun Deaths,” posted in 2015 in the New York Times. Kristof claims that instead of banning guns entirely we should learn how to coexist with them. He argues that for change to occur throughout the world, it would be nearly impossible to rid the world of guns and that evil will always remain, but serious government threats could potentially eliminate this problem. Kristof builds his credibility by including statistics, incorporating …show more content…
He incorporates several tense explanations of this issue in order to evoke pity and sadness within his readers. Kristof says, “In America, more preschoolers are shot dead each year (82 in 2013) than police officers are in the line of duty (27 in 2013), according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI.” By including this harsh statistic, it effectively supports his argument and its seriousness. Kristof continues to fill his article with emotionally-charged phrases and statistics such as the comparison between civil war deaths and gun deaths. Cold hard facts really paint a picture for the reader, being that one may be shocked to read how gun deaths have impacted our world …show more content…
He includes how he was challenged with the thought that someone proposed to him that even without guns, people would still kill themselves regardless if they had a gun or not. However, Kristof refutes this idea by adding that in Great Britain, people would kill themselves by exposing themselves to high levels of coal gas in ovens. But when Britain later switched from coal gas to natural gas the suicide rates dropped immensely. He included this fact to demonstrate that the British didn’t ban ovens due suicide rates they just simply made them safer, which can be model for guns. This implies that guns do not necessarily need to be banned, they just need more safety regulations. Kristof also includes that gun safety is not being addressed. He says, “Between 1973 and 2012, the National Institutes of Health awarded 89 grants for the study of rabies and 212 for cholera¾ and only three for firearms injuries.” This statistic clearly proves that gun safety is not being handled accordingly, which supports Kristof’s argument toward improving gun
Tragedy after tragedy, people find themselves mourning over the lives lost. And over and over again, they look back to see how they could have prevented it. People continue to argue and constantly debate what actions should be taken, and while doing so, more and more people lose their lives at the hands of gun violence. It’s clear to see that not much has been done to keep these weapons out of the wrongs hands: the shootings at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech have shown that. What would happen if there were to be another devastating shooting to occur? How would people react? Or would they just argue some more, while the wrong people can still easily get a hold of guns? The only way they can ever gain control of anything is by controlling the source of the problem, where people are able to freely purchase guns without restrictions. In order to reduce gun-related crime, unlicensed gun sellers should be required to run background checks on their customers.
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.
Gun Control in America is seen as ineffective, citizens believe gun control laws in place are not protecting lives, but taking them away. In order to solve this problem, many think more laws should be put in place. By doing so, they believe guns would no longer be in the hands of criminals and lives would not be ended before their time. In Christine Watkins’s article, “Stronger Gun Control Will Save Lives” She explains that if guns were objects that truly kept us safe, America would be the safest country in the world. She also states that a gun in any home is more likely to be mistreated, causing an accidental shooting. She also hints that more common sense laws would greatly benefit gun owners (Stronger Gun Control). One of her points is quite agreeable, more common sense gun laws would be entirely useful in the long run. By having more safety guidelines, such as; trigger locks, which make it so the gun cannot be used, keeping the ammunition and the gun separated, never pointing a gun at another person, unless your life is in life threatening danger, making sure the weapon is properly cleaned on a regular basis, and even teaching children how to properly handle weapons. By taking these common sense precautions to use, it would prevent innumerable accidental misfires in homes. On the other hand, laws put in place to simply make it more difficult to obtain a weapon is not the answer. By keeping guns out of the lawful citizen’s hands, only the lawbreakers will benefit. Author John R. Lott, Jr. wrote the book entitled More Guns Less Crimes, informs readers that by having a concealed weapon, as opposed to carrying a weapon openly, carries more potential to reduce crime rates across America. By concealing a weapon, no one knows who is ...
More than 20,000 children and youth under the age of 20 years old are injured or killed by guns in the U.S. The easy accesses kids have to getting their hands on guns are a major reason why firearms are the second leading cause of death among the youth. The majority of deaths by guns in the youth are homicides. About one-third of them are suicides. Seven percent are unintentional. People living in urban areas such as, older teens, males, African American youth, and Hispanic youth are more likely to be involved in gun homicides. People in rural areas like males and Caucasian youth are more likely to commit suicide. There were 2,711 infant, child, and teen firearm deaths. That’s seven deaths a day.
Guns are not the trouble, people are. The United States is #1 in world gun ownership, and yet is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people. The number of unintentional fatalities due to firearms declined by 58 percent between 1991 and 2011 Based on these facts, one can see the guns not the causes of gun violence. moreover, civilians who get permits take gun safety courses and have criminal background...
McMahan backs up his premises by showing that in other “Western Countries, per capita homicide rates, as well as rates of violent crime involving guns, are a fraction of what they are in the United States.” (McMahan, 4). Gun advocates deny this claim, but then what could be the reason for the United States being the homicide capital of the developed world? Essentially, I believe that McMahan has a solid, compelling argument that makes readers believe that we should take more steps in the direction of banning guns. The analogies he places within the article make for a descriptive, persuasive argument, yet McMahan lacks statistics and factual information to back up his claims.
“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns. (Obama)” This said prior to Obama’s presidency, in the 1990’s, is still a topic that is constantly questioned today. Many American’s feel the need to seek ownership of weapons as a source of protection; While others believe that private ownership of guns will do nothing more but heighten the rate of violence due to people taking matters into his or her own hands. Philosophy professor Jeff McMahan agrees with Obama’s statement in regard to the ownership of guns. In his New York Times editorial titled “When Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough,” McMahan provides evidence to support his theory of the dangers that quickly follow when allowing the community to own guns legally. McMahan, throughout the text, shows responsible reasoning and allows the reader the opportunity to obtain full understanding and justifies his beliefs properly.
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 violence has been and continues to be one of the major problems in American. The U.S. has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and consequently the highest rate of gun violence and fatalities compared to other developed countries. In a study by the University of Sydney it is estimated that there are 270,000,000 to 310,000,000 guns in the United States. According to the same study in 2010 there were 31,672 fatalities caused by firearms and on the following year the number went up to 32,163. Homicides resulting from guns are high in the United States and they are claiming more than eleven thousand lives every year (Guns in the United States: Firearms, Armed Violence and Gun Law). According to Vision for Humanity, an initiative for the Economics and Peace, the United States is ranked 99 out of 162 countries in the 2013 global peace index, homicide rates and violent crimes are among the various criteria used to determine the ranking (Vision of Humanity). Mass shootings at work places, schools, shopping malls and places of worship are happening in an a...
Today in the United States many people argue over the fact of guns being legal or illegal. There are people using guns for personal safety and there are others who use them for crimes, as well as for other situations. Firearm deaths in the United States have slowly been decreasing from year to year with all these bills getting passed to promote a safer country than ever before. Guns are the main weapon for youth suicide, school shootings, and for committing murder. In 2010 there were 2,711 infants, child, and teenage firearm deaths. As in school shootings and in committing murder, studies show shooters often had multiple, non-automatic guns, shootings were planned, most youth tell before shooting, shooters have a history of being bullied or threatened, shooters have mental issues, and shooters have done suicidal gestures before (Gun Control with School Shootings). Although there are people who use guns for murdering, there are also those who oppose guns being used without the proper requirements. 85% of all respondents to the survey supporting requiring states to report people to national background-checks systems who are prohibited from owning gu...
“A handgun ban is not realistically enforceable. Confiscating guns would require house-to-house searches and alienate the very individuals whose compliances is essential to the success of any regulation. If gun ownership were prohibited, organized crime would step in to provide the firearms that will continue to be procured with criminal intent” (Done Kates). Over the past decade, the media has reported an increase in the severity of violent crimes as individuals have killed and hurt many others, including kids. Since 2006 there have been over 200 mass murders in the United States. Between 2006 and 2011 alone, the FBI has counted over 172 cases of mass killings, not including those unreported from different police agencies to the FBI (“Murders
Through the year’s shootings have increased by a significant amount. Individuals are becoming affected on a regular basis and are concerned about there safety. Parents are worried for there youth getting assaulted, sexually violence, tormented, kidnaped, murdered on the other hand, now there ending up to be more stressed for there child getting shot. Guns have been around for hundredths of years, both world wars were succeeded with guns, hence, guns were served to defend its nation through history. In Western society citizens purchase guns for self preservation. Unfortunately, they are utilized in opposing ways, the majority of crimes are involved in gun shootings; this is an essential issue in America. Most agree that gun violence will have
In his article “Our Blind Spot about Guns,” Nicholas Kristof argues for making guns safer for the people who use them by bringing up the comparison of guns to cars; “Cars don’t kill people. People kill people,” (261). Kristof’s purpose is to address the fact that guns are not as safe as they should be and are the cause of thousands of deaths each year. Although his ideas for increasing gun safety are interesting, there is a shortcoming in the comparisons he used. In order to make a stronger argument, one must use literary devices. In this case, Kristof used ethos, pathos, logos, and additional rhetorical devices.
Supporters of gun control state that to decrease crimes committed with fire arms (which amass a high majority of crimes) guns should be banned from private ownership. This removes guns from the public, therefore taking away the instrument of easily accomplishing crimes. Arthur Kellermann and Donald T. Raey, two gun control advocates, did their own research into the issue and published a discovery of their own; the 43-1 Statistic. In this statistic, Kellerman and Raey state that a gun will be used in a justified shooting one time, while forty three other people are killed by a gun unjustly, either by suicide, accident, or criminal (Heumer 9). According to these two researchers, gun ownership is not worth it. Private ownership of guns saved one life wh...
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.