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 Gopnik and Cooke both decided to take very different approaches to addressing their topic. In Cooke’s article he comes across as very logical, giving his readers the cold hard facts no matter how repetitive they are. Cooke beats down the stereotypical viewpoint of liberals that most shooting are …show more content…
To begin with the unemotional Cooke apathetically uses Kathleen Parker's quote that, “Nothing proposed in the gun-control debates would have prevented the mass killings of children at Sandy Hook Elementary School” (Cooke 1). While Gopnik on the other hand beautifully captures his audience in an emotional storm just thinking about dead students cellphones ringing while their terrified parents on the other end, “...desperate hope for a sudden answer and the bliss of reassurance, dawning grief - is unbearable” (Gopnik 1). But back comes debbie downer Cooke who surprisingly thinks that, “To wish to prevent Sandy Hook is an admirable and human instinct” (Cooke 5). However he then goes on to explain that chasing a solution will not fix anything. Leaving his audience will a sense of hopelessness that it could ever get
Sandy Hook is an elementary school in Connecticut that was invaded by a shooter, Adam Lanza. Twenty-eight people were shot and killed, twenty of them being children between the ages of five and ten. Before Lanza arrived, he shot and killed his mother who was a teacher at this school. The article was published the day of the shooting to the Washington Post. The article was written announce what had actually happened during this tragic event. The article was directed towards parents with kids and adults to inform everyone on the catastrophe and to hopefully make schools as safe as they could possibly be. Additionally the author also states that this is not the right time to try and discuss the gun control laws.
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.
Aroung the time of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the controversial and widely argued issue of gun control sparked and set fire across America. In the past decade however, it has become one of the hottest topics in the nation. Due to many recent shootings, including the well known Sandy Hook Elementary school, Columbine High School, Aurora movie theater, and Virginia Tech, together totaling 87 deaths, many people are beginning to push for nationwide gun control. An article published in the Chicago Tribune by Illinois State Senator Jacqueline Collins, entitled “Gun Control is Long Overdue” voiced the opinion that in order for America to remain the land of the free, we must take action in the form of stricter gun laws. On the contrary, Kathleen Parker, a member of the Washington Post Writers Group whose articles have appeared in the Weekly Standard, Time, Town & Country, Cosmopolitan, and Fortune Small Business, gives a different opinion on the subject. Her article in The Oregonian “Gun Control Conversation Keeps Repeating” urges Americans to look at the cultural factors that create ...
The Ethics of Gun Control The phrase "Gun Control" means different things to different people. One bumper sticker states that "Gun Control means hitting your target." However one defines gun control, the mere mention of it brings controversy.
“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.
An estimated 30,000 people are killed each year by guns in the United States alone according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s). Though there have been some restrictions and laws placed, both the conservative and liberal sides are not pleased with either the lack of action or the fact that there has been too much action that has taken place. “About 38% of U.S. households and 26% of individuals owned at least one gun, with about half of the individuals having 4 or more guns, according to a 2004 survey by the Harvard School of Public Health (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s).” Both sides turn to the one document centered on the argument for evidence to support their side: the Second Amendment.
In the article “Gun Control Can Prevent School Shootings,” Bennett shares the effects of gun violence in the past, present, and future. The Sandy Hook shooting occurred on December 14, 2012 when twenty children and six adult staff members were killed. Barely a month after the shooting, eleven of the families affected by the shooting went to meet privately with Joe Biden, and members from the Congress and cabinet. Bennett stated, “They were preparing to wade into some of the roughest waters in American politics: the gun debate.” President Obama gave a speech in Connecticut vowing to fight for change. And as Bennett put it, “Members of Congress started acting as parents instead of politicians.” Bennett explained to the families that they couldn't get rid of assault weapons or high capacity ammunition magazines, no matter how bad the shooting was. The families got angry and stated they did not want to know what they couldn't do, but what they could do to honor their children.
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 conversation of gun control and gun regulation has been a great debate over the decades. NRA Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, in his speech on Newtown Shooting that occurred on December 21st, 2012, addresses the topic of gun control and argues that guns are not the cause of gun violence. LaPierre's project is to instead of gun control and decreasing the numbers of guns, increase the numbers of guns to solve the problem of gun violence. On the other side of debate, an American journalist, Nicholas Kristof, in his journal, "Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?" argues that guns are the cause of gun violence, but they should not be banned. Kristof's project is to regulate guns with many cautions. While these two authors have different arguments and projects, they use similar strategies to advance their claims. This paper will focus on the way each author strategically uses compare and contrast, cause and effect, and problem-solution to advance their claims and how effective these strategies are used.
In light of recent tragic events, gun control is once again an important topic of conversation. Both left and right wing individuals attempt to sway society towards their sides of the argument. These debates almost always follow the occurrence of a major attack on innocent persons. The questions are always the same. How did the individual obtain a firearm? What measurements are in place to keep this from happening again? Why does the average person need to own an “assault rifle’’? Why don’t we just ban everyone in the country from owning guns? In order to get a better understanding of the topic of gun control, we will have to explore these major questions.
Guns are viewed as sacred symbol, as it should be, as they took a significant role in America gaining its independence. Gun ownership is very common in the United States. According to recent reports, there is enough nonmilitary guns in the country to arm every man, woman, and child, with a few million weapons left over (Keidan, 2014). With so many guns in our nation, they affect many different aspects of our lives. Some think they affect life in a positive way and that we should have the right but at the same time, the other side of the debate, they say that we need more gun control. So what is more correct, gun rights or gun control? In this paper I will discuss the history of the gun law, if citizens have the right to own guns, how guns are
“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.” The right of all Americans to bear arms is a right the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Gun control laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under consideration. Even if that issue is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms, the idea of restricting gun ownership in order to reduce firearm-related violence would ultimately fail given the previous experiments of gun control in England and in numerous states.
Many Americans are now applying for a license to carry licensed concealed arms with them. The rate at which licenses are being approved is worrying. This development is concerning law enforcement authorities. Putting so many firearms at the disposal of the public is counterproductive to the gains that are being made on improving security and especially in the cities where incidences of gun crime and violence are on the rise.
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...