"Being Prepared in Suburbia" is an essay by Roger Verhulst published in 1992. The purpose of this essay is to show how guns can change a person's mind and emotions. Throughout the essay, Verhulst shares personal examples of his beliefs of gun ownership and personal examples of how his life changed once he bought a Crossman Power Master 760 BB Repeater pump gun. After purchasing the gun, he believed that the reason people like guns so much is because of a passion that gun owners feel. He stated, "This is the feeling that explains their passion, their religious fervor, their refusal to yield. It's rooted in the gut, not in the head" (Verhulst 342). He also realized that personal thoughts and morals about gun ownership change for a gun owner, and, in a sense, how the gun has authority over an individual's life. For example, "But a roving opossum that took up residence in our garage for a few cold nights in January undermined my good intentions" (Verhulst 341). Honestly, those are only excuses and not legitimate reasons. A strong person would not go against his or her beliefs and would know that using a gun should only be for a specific and valid purpose. Throughout the essay, he believes the weak gun legislation and the problems with gun usage are because of a passion that you feel in your gut; in reality, it is a lack of self-control.
Although Verhulst had his personal beliefs about guns and he had a reason for purchasing the gun, his original viewpoints of guns contradict one another, making it hard to believe that he disapproved of guns in their entirety. He talked about how he opposed guns so much and how he believed the result of shooting a gun would "only make entities less functional." Verhulst even gives examp...
... middle of paper ...
...lation. In all actuality, gun legislation is a serious issue and through this essay, a reader would simply believe that the gun legislation is fine and does not need to be stronger. Although he gives personal examples throughout the essay, other examples would enforce that there should be stronger gun legislation and that guns actually cause harm. Other examples would also make Verhulst's essay stronger and show that other people are just as weak as he is, and reader's would have a stronger belief that gun legislation is too weak. His examples alone promote guns and do not prevent them because the examples glorify his weakness to yield to the temptation. Although he believes that the causes of his weakness and other peoples' weakness is because of emotions that triumph over reason, a stronger and bolder person for stronger gun legislation would have self-control.
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
Guns have possessed the spotlight of almost every news station. From the latest tragedy of a shooting killing innocent men, women and children to the arguments centering around if our gun laws possess strict enough qualities to keep our country safe. Charles C. W. Cooke, the author of “Gun-Control Dishonesty”, spreads his conservative view on the topic by ripping away any hope for a brighter day. Cooke’s main idea states that if nothing has happened to make gun law more strict even after the lives of innocent children were mercilessly ripped away from their young bodies than nothing should or could ever change. On the other hand, Adam Gopnik wrote his article, “Shooting”, uses a more liberal approach and inspires his audience to act upon the much needed change in our society
What is your definition of gun control? In the essay “There is a reason they choose schools”, you will discover what gun control means to Timothy Wheeler. Wheeler is a major part of the organization, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership. He has written an essay in which he is trying to prove that without being able to use self-defense, guns pose a public health risk. Wheeler has worked with many physicians, medical students, and scientist who support his theory. By doing extensive studies in previous gun violence cases, they want to prove guns are more than just a health issue, they are a health crisis. Not only to those who carry them, but also to those who don’t. In many of these studies, they used schools as the primary target of gun violence.
In the article “Peaceful Woman Explains Why She Carries a Gun” Linda M. Hasselstrom, explains a series of events that prompt her to an important decision. It was a decision that changed her life. Hasselstrom is a respected writer who has written several books on based on personal, life experiences. In this particular article she gives examples of events that have occurred to her that forced her take a decision of carrying a gun. She explains that throughout her 10 recent years there were varies occasions where she saw herself in a dangerous situation. During those 10 years she constantly experienced situations where she saw she needed protection, and a simple self defense class wasn’t going to help. She became aware of her surroundings and eventually had experience on what to do in those types of dangerous situations. Although carrying a gun for her was something she needed when it came to protection, she also had to learn that it was a huge responsibility.
Many people have heard that having a gun makes you a man, so Dave believes that purchasing a gun would help him become one. The gun represents power, masculinity, independence, and respect, which are all things that Dave wants. The idea of owning a gun is David’s outlet, a way to quickly become more powerful and manly. The feeling of having a gun in his possession was to prevent others around him from looking at him as just a little boy. With the gun, Dave felt invincible, as if no harm could come his way and as if he is on top of the
In this article the author Fawn Johnson gives us a brief look of what goes on during the great gun control debate. This article gives us a look at the gun control proposals, from American’s not bein...
“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.
A man by the name of Sean Faircloth, who is an author, an attorney, and a five-term state legislator from Maine; went against Sam Harris to give his own beliefs on the ordeal. Faircloth also wrote an article for The Week in response to Harris titled, “Why more guns won’t make us safer” in which he claims that Harris neglected the two largest problems involving gun-violence. Faircloth believes that Harris failed to acknowledge the substantial issue of gun-related domestic violence against women, and the success of gun-control legislation in foreign countries. Utilizing statistics, real world examples, and his own logic; Faircloth goes in depth with his core arguments. He wrote his article to dissuade the readers of Sam Harris’s article that “Why I own guns” lacks
Gun control in the United States has been a major debate for hundreds of years. Many people believe that guns should be highly regulated while others believe that anyone should have the ability to own one. Each side has a plausible argument. Throughout this essay it will be show how not having gun control can increase violence and death rates, the right for everyone to own a gun is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and how over usage of guns has played a role in the diminishing populations of animals.
There are gun control laws to try and reduce the number of violent shootings that occur. They are trying to put limits on weapons that Americans can own. The government is trying to take our guns away mainly because of people that are criminally insane. Most of the people who commit crimes don’t even have the weapons legally. If the government takes away the rights of people who are allowed to have firearms in their possession, it will most definitely cause an outrage. Most people believe that the people should be more capable of maintain proper use of the firearms instead of having them all taken away. Taking the firearms from Americans away would cause a lot more problems than there actually are. The people will be upset with the government taking firearms away because of the horrible people who harm innocent people using them. So they will do anything to their capabilities to keep them.
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.
...mes and the consequences resulting from it, and introduces the lack of children's protection and the solution to fix it. Kristof compares guns with cars and ladders, explains the results from gun violence, and introduces the problem of many guns violence and the solution of stricter gun rules. I agree with LaPierre's viewpoints on gun control, but overall Kristof has a stronger argument than LaPierre because Kristof uses his strategies more effectively than LaPierre does. Although LaPierre appeals to pathos and Krsitof does not, Kristof discusses more in detail with his strategies and appeals to logos while LaPierre does not. By examining multiple points of view in the conversation of gun controls and gun regulations, the audience can understand multiple ideas than just one idea and think more in-depth about his or her viewpoints on gun controls and gun regulations.
Gun control has been a big debate across America due to the high crimes that involves a gun. Oklahoma has nearly half of the states citizen owning a gun, due to Oklahoma laws are so lay back on their citizens owning a gun. Crimes in this state is are near the top half of the United States that involve some sort of firearm. Today there are more tragic mass shootings that are occurring in the United States, in which some are involving small children. This is why the state of Oklahoma needs to put a stricter gun policy to the citizens of this state, so that the crime rates that involve a gun will go down.
The debate over gun control in America has constantly been brought up over the years due to gunmen killing large amounts of people in shootings. From Columbine to Sandy Hook, or the shootings of the two reporters in West Virginia, these public shootings are occurring everywhere. Lawmakers and civilians alike are pushing for increased gun control in hopes of preventing the same tragedies. Anyone that has been affected by the shootings has been pushing Congress and state governments to force new sanctions on the government. Over the past three years, Congress has shot down all the laws despite the large amounts of public support.
Every day some news related to gun violence are being heard all over the world. Shooting in driveway, public places, schools, homicide and suicide are some of different types of gun violence. Shooting on people and killing them is a big issue in the world and different comments are provided about that. One of the most important of them is about gun control laws. Stingl (2013) says “The term gun control as it is used in the United States refers to any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens.” According to this idea gun control laws should be stricter and people should not be able to have access to guns easily. However, there are many other people who believe this idea is not a good solution and never help. This essay will demonstrate for and against views about the topic. People who agree with this idea consider: firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence and gun control means crime control. Secondly, some research shows people with gun are more at risks of getting shot. Thirdly, guns can always be misused by their owners and finally, stricter law is the best and the faster way to control crime and make community safe. While opponents say first of all, guns are necessary for people safety and protection. Secondly, guns are not the only tools for killing and violence; there are other weapons too and finally, gun ownership is human rights.