More handpicked essays just for you.
Argumentative essay topics on gun control
Argumentative essay topics on gun control
Gun control info for argumentative essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Persuasion for gun control: The Right To Bear Arms No matter what side people may fall on when it comes to the debate of gun control, they can agree that both sides of the issue have had some solid points in support of their cause. Chief Justice Burger’s “The Right To Bear Arms,” is an example of a clearly defined stance on the position supporting gun control. His comprehensive background, emotional power, and brilliant understanding of the rational argument further support this positon.
Chief Justice Burger’s “The Right To Bear Arms,” is supported by his use of historical precedence because of his authority, knowledge of the past, and his ability to accurately contrast a bygone era and its importance within the present debate. First, his
…show more content…
First, his emotional appeal is apparent when he opened with, “Our metropolitan centers, and some suburban communities of America, are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last year, Washington, D.C., alone had more than 400 homicides -- setting a new record for our capital.” The reason he had for this opening was to invite people into the discussion with an emotional claim supported by valid statistical facts. Secondly, he keeps his emotion in check and uses the argument its self to invoke the emotion he required. His only overt emotional cry so to speak was when he stated, “In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces. He used the word sadly in this sentence to depict how we still have a National Guard, but how easily it could be a part of our defense if required. His use of sadly refers to the emotional distress caused by the inescapable eventuality that …show more content…
First, his evident power of the logical debate while able to use facts is supported when he closed with the following: “If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:1 to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions? 2 to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued? 3 that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle? 4 to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?” These were used to provide a logical argument in support of his position while also tying them to an emotional response with the use of “mindless homicidal carnage”. He ends his essay with “These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquility" promised in the Constitution.” His intention here is to remind his audience that things always change given enough time, and that people must always be on guard when in defense of the constitution and what its relevance is to a
"The Controversy of Gun Control." Open Discussion about Various Controversies. N.p.. Web. 3 Dec 2013. .
Former Chief Justice of the United States (1969 – 1986), Warren E. Burger, was published in the January 14, 1990 edition of Parade Magazine for his work entitled, “The Right to Bear Arms”. In his essay, he questions the modern age standards being held for one to purchase a firearm, with an aim to tighten up those regulations. To argue his case he has provided record breaking homicide statistics from 1988 and states that some of the metropolitan centers in the U.S. “have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe”, where strict gun control laws have been placed.
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.
...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.
Opposing sides have for years fought over the laws that govern firearms. For the purposes of this paper "Gun Control" is defined as policies enacted by the government that limit the legal rights of gun owners to own, carry, or use firearms, with the intent of reducing gun crimes such as murder, armed robbery, aggravated rape, and the like. So defined, gun control understandably brings favorable responses from some, and angry objections from others. The gun control debate is generally publicized because of the efforts of the Pro-Gun Lobby or the Anti-Gun Lobby.
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
In current day society, it is frequently promoted as self-defense and our “duty” as Americans to own a gun of some sort. The second amendment to the constitution declares that “We the People” are allowed to bear arms because we live in a free State. Although these statements are true, at what cost? The question, “at what cost,” arises due to the recent push for an extension and enforcement of the second amendment. The people of the States have been pushing for desired concealed carry at public areas, such as schools. Statements and questions of concern have been on the as to whether or not this idea is “smart”. Contrary of it allowing some people to feel safe, the idea should be imposed. Guns are weapons and they have the history behind them
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
With many recent incidents that involve guns between 2012 and 2013, gun control laws have become a hot topic in America. On one hand, after the horrific incident like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting at Newtown in 2012, most people wanting to limit guns from getting into the wrong by setting up a rigorous system that control who can and cannot obtain a gun. On the other hand, we have the people who believe that with such rigorous system in place is violated the individual rights that granted and protected by the United States Constitution. They believe that the rigorous system will prevent people from defending themselves and could be a violation of their privacy. Regardless of which side is right, if we want to understand more about our current conflict, we have to look back on how this hold debate started. The District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court case in 2008 that found the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional, which influence the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by questioning the Second Amendment and laws that restrict a person from acquire guns.
[2] Dowlut, Robert. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in State Bills of Rights and Judicial
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.
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.
Gun control has been a controversial issue for many years. A vast majority of citizens believe that if gun control is strictly enforced it would quickly reduce the threat of crime. Many innocent people feel they have the right to bear arms for protection, or even just the pleasure of hunting. Americans have a constitutional right to own hand guns and stricter laws and licensing will not affectively save lives.
Professional champions of civil rights and civil liberties have been unwilling to defend the underlying principle of the right to arms. Even the conservative defense has been timid and often inept, tied less, one suspects, to abiding principle and more to the dynamics of contemporary Republican politics. Thus a right older than the Republic, one that the drafters of two constitutional amendments the Second and the Fourteenth intended to protect, and a right whose critical importance has been painfully revealed by twentieth-century history, is left undefended by the lawyers, writers, and scholars we routinely expect to defend other constitutional rights. Instead, the Second Amendment’s intellectual as well as political defense has been left in the unlikely hands of the National Rifle Association (NRA). And although the NRA deserves considerably better than the demonized reputation it has acquired, it should not be the sole or even principal voice in defense of a major constitutional provision.
There is no single answer to end the debate on gun control. Many variables must be examined but the evidence presented cannot be ignored. Gun control does not end violence, but makes the law-abiding citizens more vulnerable. In the 1878 Arkansas case of Wilson v. State, a judge stated, “Common sense dictates that inanimate objects, such as guns, are not responsible for human behavior. We don’t hold a match responsible for arson or a camera responsible for pornography. We rightly hold the people who misuse these tools liable. The same should be true for guns.”