With all of the recent shootings happening around the country, liberals and conservatives have begun an uproar of open arguments as to whether or not tighter gun-control laws should be put into effect. Many people on the left wing of the political scale have joined together to create arguments as to why enforcing more laws on law-abiding citizens will protect everyone; however, the groups that have joined on the farther right side of the scale have many oppositions to those arguments. Many essays, speeches, and satirical pieces have been made to express why it is a constitutional right to own any gun and as many guns as people choose, without having track records by the government. Two pieces that particularly stand out are Bob Owen’s “A Crushing …show more content…
As stated previously, the article by Owens was told to be for the “anti-gun liberals” (Owens). However, though commenting a lot on who all is included, it does not specify or go further in depth to define what an “anti-gun liberal” is, which is a huge fallacy in that piece. In the video, it is openly expressed that not only is it geared toward liberals against guns, but it actually does a nice job of specifying what that means. It is “anyone who thinks that gun control will lower crime rates,” people part of the “90% that support back ground checks, and who believe that lie,” etc. (“Hitler and Gun Control, a Humorous Look”). By claiming that the American people actually have common sense to not pass the bills, and that applying gun control on “honest law abiding citizens” (“Hitler and Gun Control, a Humorous Look”), they imply that their audience is people who want to pass the bills, think that more background checks and control over guns will lower crime rates, and that the government is only taking the guns for the better and no other reason. It further defines the “democratic” reasoning behind support of gun-control and uses that to enhance the argument. The video’s claim is more specific, thus presenting a clear argument to a clear and defined audience; not just saying “screw you” to “anti-gun …show more content…
are absolutely ridiculous. To help make those claims, the video and article both appeal to logic and question the actual mental capacity of those who believe the counterarguments to be correct. In the quoted speech, Schlichter states that people “can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest” (Owens). This alludes to the recent Chicago shootings, claiming that there is a higher crime rate in a city with some of the strictest gun laws, and yet people still believe that more control will prevent crimes from being carried out. He also goes on with more facts, saying people “can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people” and “offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun” (Owens). Now in the video, our infamous characters discuss the lines and quotes they used to try and convert people’s thoughts. These lines ironically are very similar to what many democrats have tried to use to gain more support of
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
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 ...
Gun control is a controversial issue that currently has no easy solution to please everyone. In an article written by Adam Winkler, a professor from the UCLA School of Law, he states that open carry is the answer to having fewer guns on the streets. His argument fails because it contains false premises throughout the article and is also inductively weak. First, he commits the slippery slope fallacy by assuming a series of events will occur for doing one action. Second, he commits the bandwagon fallacy. The fact that other states have the open carry law in effect does not make his argument true nor does it make it a valid reason. Last, he neglects how there will always be people who do not follow laws. Gun control in the United States has been a difficult topic for many people to discuss, but Winkler’s point of view of the topic does not give a complete thought about why people should agree with him.
This essay will discuss the pros and cons of gun control. Some U.S. States have already adopted some of these gun control laws. I will be talking about the 2nd amendment, public safety, home safety, and do gun control laws really control guns. I hope after you have read this you will be more educated, and can pick your side of the gun control debate. So keep reading and find out more about the gun control laws that the federal and some state governments want to enforce on U.S. Citizens.
Is it any coincidence that the states with the loosest gun laws in America tend to contribute to the highest amount of national gun deaths and injuries? This is one of the main questions we should be asking when deciding what is best for our country and its citizens. Although gun control has been an ongoing issue, certain events like the Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and the Aurora, Colorado mass shootings have increased our attention to this topic. Although I believe that Americans possess the right to own a firearm, I believe there should be detailed screening and control systems to keep guns out of the wrong hands, to prevent more gun violence from happening in the future.
“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.
On Friday morning, November 6th, a man in New York city woke up and watched the news. There he saw former mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, announcing his ideas for gun control. The news stated that after spending millions of dollars to spread his “Everytown for Gun Safety” across the country, United States citizens were still not impressed. Bloomberg’s main goals are to enforce stricter background checks, remove guns from domestic abusers, and give families the right to remove guns from people they believe are dangerous. According to the “Gun Control Overview,” pro-gun control advocates only focus on a select few gun violence issues, and they tend to repeat the same examples in their rhetoric. The gun control is one of the most debated
Guns, Crime, and Freedom states that, no gun law which restricts the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns has been proven to reduce crime or homicides, not even the Brady Law and the “Clinton Crime Bill.” These two laws st...
As violence and murder rates escalate in America so does the issue of gun control. The consequence of this tragedy births volatile political discourse about gun control and the Second Amendment. The crux of the question is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote, “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.” Since the writing of the Second Amendment the make and model of firearms has changed dramatically and so has the philosophies of the people. A rifle is no longer defined as a single shot, muzzle-loading musket used to primarily protect families or solely for food. Should the weapons we use today be protected by an amendment written nearly 222 years ago? Should the second amendment be rewritten? Does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens? These questions spark extensive debates in Washington D.C. regarding what the founding fathers intended the amendment to be. The answer to this question lies in the fact that despite hundreds of gun control articles having been written , still the gun control issue remains unresolved. History tells us gun control debates will be in a stalemate until our judicial system defines or rewrites the Second Amend. This paper will examine the history of the Second Amendment, and attempt to define the framers intent, gun control legislation and look at factors that affect Americans on this specific issue...
They believe that if background checks were required for private sales, which they describe as “firearms sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere” then the “Gun Show Loophole” would be eliminated (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence). As evidenced by the call for an increase in gun control after mass shootings people believe that with stricter gun control, we would have less incidences of gun violence. Gun control advocates argue that if we have stricter gun control then we will have a safer country, with less shootings. According to a study done by the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University between 2005-2007, the number of police officers who “were convicted of firearms violations” were convicted “at a .0002% annual rate” (Fund). According to this study .0002% is “about the same rate as holders of carry permits in states with “shall issue” laws”
For years proposals for gun control and the ownership of firearms have been among the most controversial issues in modern American politics. The public debate over guns in the United States is often seen as having two side. Some people passionately assert that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns while others assert that the Second Amendment does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. There are many people who insist that the Constitution is a "living document" and that circumstances have changed in regard to an individual’s right to bear arms that the Second Amendment upholds. The Constitution is not a document of total clarity and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted of all its amendments and has left many Americans divided over the true intent.
People have questioned gun control long time. Many people wonder if anyone, aside from those who join the law force, should be allowed to carry guns. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Wright 4). Franklin understood that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would not uphold their liberty. Some people who argue for gun control state many violent crimes involve guns. Others believe a child could find the gun and something bad could happen to the child or others when a gun is unsafely stored. People who argue against gun control might say there is a huge psychological gap between citizens who shoot to protect themselves or their property and those who go into schools and shoot at others. Criminals will always find a way around gun control laws and will be able to obtain and use guns illegally. The second amendment protects gun rights for individual citizens. Reasonable gun control laws and educational steps can be taken to protect the majority of U.S. citizens. Gun control does not only take guns away from criminals, gun control also limits law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families when necessary.
Central in the arguments against gun control is its ability to restrict any citizen of the United States the right to own guns which is protected under the constitution. Specifically, due recognition is made to its connection to the 2nd Amendment wherein it seeks to protect the individual liberties of people. This facet also applies to gun ownership regardless of the original objective and intention. “The second amendment from the Bill of Rights grants private citizens the right to bear arms. Thus, people who stand firmly against gun control insist that no legislation, technically, should have the right to take away a citizen’s guns without first repealing the amendment in question” (Groberman 1). A good approach to consider in highlighting this part comes from depriving the citizen of his basic right on the basis of specific presumption that it would be used for violence or crim...