Kristof is sarcastically and quietly confident in his belief that America is the second most armed country in the World, with the first being terrorism-plagued Yemen in the midst of a “minor civil war”. In this anti-weaponry advisory, readers are informed of gun fatality statistics, the self-imposed dangers of owning a firearm and stand witness to Kristof’s somewhat comical discrediting of many exaggerated pro-gun claims. He recruits academic authority, Harvard professor and author David Hemenway, regarding his perspective of the prevalence and effects of the soaring numbers of gun ownerships in society vs popular opinion regarding personal safety afforded by said ownerships. Kristof neatly concludes his argument with a one handed clap to Congress’ …show more content…
Upon reading and analyzing Kristof’s arguments and conclusions on this issue, the reader can come to respect his perspective as he satisfies the first quality of a responsible reasoner. The first of four criteria “Responsible Reasoning is Well Informed” is outlined as stating; “To argue responsibly, a person must support his or her opinions with reliable and current evidence.” (Crusius and Channell 9). Through the use of authority via the voice of David Hemenway, author and Harvard professor, Kristof presents the reader with Hemenway’s stance that, “the gun debate [is] a public health challenge, [making] clear that a gun in the home makes you much more likely to be …show more content…
As detailed by Crusius and Channell; “Part of being well-informed means knowing something about the history of an argument. An argument’s history tells us how and why people’s viewpoints formed and gives us a context for our own views. Knowing context means knowing the current range of opinion on an issue. We have to know what other people are saying to make our own reasoning relevant.” (10) Being “an Oregon farm boy who was given a .22 rifle for my 12th birthday” (Kristof), it’s safe to say that Kristof is acquainted with guns and in having this first-hand knowledge, has developed a valid mechanical perspective on the subject. He gathers information from authorities as well as International procedures in the realm of gun control to form a well-rounded opinion. His intertwining of others’ viewpoints displays an attempt to rationalize his own opinion and assimilate into the cultural context of this sensitive social discussion. Directly referring to Tucson (the most recent mass shooting at that time), he validates himself in the currency of the issue. His arguments are not fanatical or grandiose, aggressive or offensive, but subtle and confident, inviting, open for discussion and within the realm and climate of this unfortunate public
In conclusion, Kristof’s arguments had flawed ideas about regulating guns because as we have seen before, a background check will not stop a man from shooting his entire family, and a gun lock will not stop a terrorist from shooting innocent people. As was said in this writing, his comparison of a gun to a car was flawed in the way that a gun has much more power over man than a car does. Vehicles were invented for transportation over long distances, while a gun was made for killing. This doesn’t compare to a vehicle in any
"The Controversy of Gun Control." Open Discussion about Various Controversies. N.p.. Web. 3 Dec 2013. .
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
Ms. Hasselstrom has ethical appeal because she used credible personal situations to support her authority to possess a gun. Because she was such a peace-loving woman, carrying a gun would be a fallacy. Her stated cause and effects gave this article logical appeal on the subject of carrying guns for safety purposes. Although she establishes good logical appeal, she failed to include statistics that could have made her argument more credible.
The important question of how we should deal with gun control inflates more and more each and everyday. In his essay, “Just Take Away Their Guns,” author James Q. Wilson gives his unique solution on the issue of gun control. He emphasizes that his argument is not to disarm law-abiding citizens, but “to reduce the number of people who carry guns unlawfully” (Wilson 126). He uses a variety of strategies such as the use of tone and logic, to effectively support his claim, however the absence of sources leaves a hole in the argument to which the reader may question the validity of the argument.
As the generations of America’s youth continue to grow, so does the increase in violent crimes associated with each generation. Over the last decade, studies have shown that school shootings have increased by an astonishing 13%. Although this figure as a percentage does not seem like much, it makes one stop and think. Parents blame the video games and their violent behaviors for the influence on their children’s daily lives. Grandparents blame the child’s parents for not showing them the right way to grow up in the world. And then we have that child’s friends who say that this child just was not respected by their classmates, or perhaps even bullied into this violent nature. Regardless of the cause to this violent increase, many Americans do believe in a solution: gun control. Gun control is the situation in which the federal government would put a ban on owning firearms. Contrary to what many “hard-core” Americans believe, gun control would not necessarily ban them from owning hunting rifles or even personal handguns. It would simply limit the ownership of semi-automatic assault rifles, and other rifles of this nature. This does not contradict the Second Amendment of the Constitution which states that American citizens have the Right to Bear Arms. I believe in the constitutional Right to Bear Arms, and I am against any attempt to eradicate that right for any American citizen: however, I am for gun control in the sense of lowering the possession of semi-automatic and fully-automatic rifles.
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...
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 ...
“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.
Adam Gopnik’s article “shootings” (2007), in the beginning explained the children that have been shot, and their cellphones have been ringing, getting calls from their worried families. With the author starting off like this, it made readers want to continue reading to know how the shooting happened, the author hooked the readers in. He talked about various gun laws and gun control later on and the misuse of gun violence. The author's point of view is that gun violence is addressed more seriously in other countries with the same situation. He is trying to persuade the reader with his style of writing, providing the reader with information about the shooting in Virginia Tech. The writer is concerned about the issue and he is informing us that Americans do not regard gun control as a serious matter as other countries do. He argues about how a dangerous weapon like a gun is if it comes in the wrong hands. Without any further restrictions, guns are available for mostly everyone who wants to have it, guns are dangerous and no one needs to have a possession of it. This is a persuasive essay
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.
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.