More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments against gun control in america essay
Argument for gun control
Arguments against gun control in america essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arguments against gun control in america essay
Finally, “A Noble Sacrifice for the right to bear AK-47s,” is the worst article of the four. Mike Ryoko, the author, deserves maybe a $500 bonus, if that. His essay is loaded with fallacies that undermine every point he tries to make. Not only that, but his examples are absurd and the central argument has no concrete evidence to back it up. His article is possibly satire. He has no sympathy for the victims of the California shooting and is opinionated throughout the entire article. In paragraph six those who support gun control are addressed as “nattering nabobs,” by Ryoko. This is an example of ad hominem where Ryoko is attacking the opposition rather than addressing the problem at hand. Instead of saying why assault weapons should be legal, Ryoko resorts to calling the opposition names. Another fallacy occurs in paragraph twelve. Ryoko writes, “After the rifle is banned, then they’ll get the shotgun and the pistol and the slingshot. After that it will be the hunting knife, the pocket knife, the hat pin.” Although Ryoko makes great use of polysyndeton and asyndeton, his logic does not follow, nor would banning the assault rifle trigger the banning of pocket knives. Therefore, this is an example of non sequitur and slippery slope. …show more content…
In paragraph eight, he provides a hypothetical example about why toting AK-47s around is a good thing. However, this example involves an average citizen fighting a force of trained Russian and Cuban soldiers. Not only would this U.S. man be severely outnumbered but he would lack the training to even stand a chance against trained military personnel. Furthermore, the odds of an invading, nation, reaching U.S. shores without the knowledge of our government are highly improbable. All these factors contribute to discrediting Ryoko’s hypothetical
In order to convey his argument O’Mara must first gain his reader’s trust. To do this, the author establishes his authority and his credibility through the editorial note, to show that he is knowledgeable to speak about the problem. Mark O’Mara’s authority checks out because he is a criminal defense attorney and he writes about “issues related to race, guns and self-defense in the context of the American criminal justice system”. So he is exposed to lot criminal acts some of which may be gun-related and so he knows how serious it is or the statistics on of which the mass shooting have increased. O’Mara appears sympathetic to his cause, as he uses facts based of emotions to make the reader feel and understand the point he is trying to make. To further credit his sources, he cites them from other notable news outlets like ABC and CNN news. The use of ethos strengths his argument because it gives the reader the confidence to believe in what the author is saying, as opposed to an author whose work is self-published and without any credentials. But O’Mara accusatory tone that implies Americans are don’t care about the shooting, drives away his American readers because it may be
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.
His introductory paragraph never states his thesis and contains contractions and assumptions. Also, there is no topic sentence introducing any of the paragraphs and the information is unorganized. As a result, there is no structure and flow with the article. The second paragraph contains sarcasm in the sentences, "Guns are dangerous. They kill people," which is also a logical fallacy. Another fallacy in this article is the use of hyperbole which is exaggeration and over-stating with certainty (McClurg 81). An example is when Estes overuses such words as nobody, surely, and always. As a result, the author 's ethos is compromised and that causes him to come across to his readers as unfair and distorting the facts ("The Three"). This could have been rectified if Estes presented some possible counter arguments to his claim, organized his article with a thesis, topic sentences, credible supporting facts, and a logical
Lee, Robert W. "A Liberal Look at Gun Control" The New American 15 (1999): 39-41
The argument is also strange because the gun lobby fervently hopes to avoid public mobilization on a constitutional amendment limiting the right to keep and bear arms. A huge majority of Americans favor stricter gun control laws; and as long as they're excluding nuclear weapons they might as well throw in assault weapons and Saturday Night Specials.
history with a right to bear arms. Finally one can see the conflict of views
Assault weapon control is becoming an unavoidable topic in the United States. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation more than nine hundred people have died from mass shootings in the past seven years and an assault rifle was used in twelve of the forty-three mass shootings in the past four years. The U.S. Department of Defense has long defined assault rifles as fully automatic rifles used for military purposes. The National Firearm Act of 1934 prohibited fully automatic weapons in the United States. The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban prohibited semi and fully automatic weapons and any weapon with military style characteristics. California Senator, Dianne Feinstein, is leading the charge in the American government to pass a bill that will limit the capacity of ammunition in a magazine and ban assault weapons that are too dangerous for public use. It is time for the American government to act swiftly and acknowledge the dangers assault rifles pose.
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.
One of the first arguments is that in a world without guns, the deciding factor in many violence-related situations is physical ability. Harris claims that the world without guns is “one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive.” The logic behind this is quite justifiable and calls for serious point in the issue. To support this, he references that police are unable to respond and arrive before anything could happen. Though a major weakness in this argument is that the physically superior being could just as well be the one possessing a firearm. In cases where all present are armed, outcomes would be determined by skill and the type of firearm. Harris addresses this by raising the question of which firearms could plausibly be prohibited. Due to the political influence of the NRA and the laws of concealment and hunting, Harris considers handguns and rifles to be the key issue. His argument is weakened due to making a large claim, handguns are the most frequently used firearms in gun violence cases, yet he does not provide any evidence to back up this statement. On the other hand, his claims that handguns are not in the pool of plausible weapon bans gain more credibility by referencing Supreme Court cases. Instead, he focuses attention on how an armed person could change a situation for the better.
Over the years many have stated that the sacrifices the Mirabal sisters undertook in order to achieve social change, was not worth the effort. From a certain perspective, this may be true, since the Mirabal sisters took many risks and sacrifices ranging from Minerva sacrificing her own child, to sacrificing their own lives in an attempt to achieve equality. However, upon an in-depth analysis, one can observe that the brave sacrifices the sisters risked to achieve social change far outweigh the latter.
In"Get a Knife, Get a dog, but Get Rid of Gun," Molly Ivins argues on gun control laws and how guns should be banned or restricted to some people. In the essay she argues how knife is more safer than guns to use, because more likely people die from cleaning or using guns in wrong way. Author main purpose is to let people know guns is danger, and should be ban. She also points out the 2nd amendment and it says clearly that guns are for those who form part of a well-regulated militia, that is armed forced, including the National Guard. I agree with Ivins about the guns control, because guns is for special training people only, and private citizens shouldn't have gun, also we don’t need to hunt for food to survive and killing innocent animal just for fun.
I do not believe it would have been just for the state to pardon Tucker’s crimes due to the moral injustice she was responsible for. In Jeffrey Reiman’s article “Against the Death Penalty” he analyzes the principle of lex talionis, which states that one who has harmed another should be penalized to the same or equivalent extent, or as the common phrase goes: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Reiman arrives at the conclusion that there is an equality between human beings by examining the implications of lex talionis, which implies one thinks of other’s pain to be as great as his or her own. Additionally, Reiman explores the Kantian belief that an individual permits the universal form of the objective which guides his action. For example, if an individual kills someone, then he or she authorizes the concept that he or she may be killed, and in doing so there is no injustice done. Thus, this belief also endorses the equality of individuals and helps grant credibility towards Reimans claim. By using Kant’s theory as a basis for his argument, Reiman asserts the concept of lex talionis “affirms both the equality and rationality of human beings and for that reason [lex talionis] is just” (Reiman). Therefore, I believe it would be unjust to grant Tucker a pardon for her crimes because doing so would lose the equality between human beings. Tucker deserved a grave punishment for the brutal murder of two people, but Tucker did not deserve to die.
This is a credible and authoritative source that tries for the first time to handle different views between groups of culturists and empiricist. I think it’s a bold step into the whole debate issue of guns. I like the way the authors are able to break down the apparent differences between conflicting groups and even offer an amicable solution to solving the
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...