Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Bibliography on gun control
Possible gun control solutions
Bibliography on gun control
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
Both LaPierre and Kristof compare and contrast to advance their arguments. To support his claim that children should be more protected, LaPierre explains the similarities and differences between the children and the rest of the nation. He explains that people care about their money so they protect the banks with armed guards; they care for president so they protect him with armed Secret Service agents (LaPierre 6-7). He then compares how people care for their children, but they are not protected like the other things that they care about. Using this compare and contrast helps the audience to understand the problem of children not being protected. It is showing the issue that people are not fully protecting all things they ca...
... middle of paper ...
...mes and the consequences resulting from it, and introduces the lack of children's protection and the solution to fix it. Kristof compares guns with cars and ladders, explains the results from gun violence, and introduces the problem of many guns violence and the solution of stricter gun rules. I agree with LaPierre's viewpoints on gun control, but overall Kristof has a stronger argument than LaPierre because Kristof uses his strategies more effectively than LaPierre does. Although LaPierre appeals to pathos and Krsitof does not, Kristof discusses more in detail with his strategies and appeals to logos while LaPierre does not. By examining multiple points of view in the conversation of gun controls and gun regulations, the audience can understand multiple ideas than just one idea and think more in-depth about his or her viewpoints on gun controls and gun regulations.
"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
...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.
Blanco and Vicencio are revisiting the gun control debate and they give a more detailed analysis of the subject. A comparison between diverse perspectives and viewpoints that is held by the pro-gun society and empiricist is laid down. The authors then try to suggest ways in which these differences and disparities can be resolved. The author offers a pragmatic approach to the policy making process that emphasizes on culture.
Guns are not the trouble, people are. The United States is #1 in world gun ownership, and yet is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people. The number of unintentional fatalities due to firearms declined by 58 percent between 1991 and 2011 Based on these facts, one can see the guns not the causes of gun violence. moreover, civilians who get permits take gun safety courses and have criminal background...
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...
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.
“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 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.
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 development of arguments surrounding gun control corresponds to the increased violence and problems related to weapons and firearms use. This then prompted the expansion of gun control initiatives and has shapes public opinion particularly in the promotion of increased regulation to banning. Due to this, it became controversial as it split the opinions of the citizenry particularly in their stance to advance different objectives. Arguably, the process of developing gun control remains to be detrimental due to its capacity to challenge individual rights and liberty, undermine the value of guns and firearms in the promotion of deterrence and self-defense and inability to recognize the commitment of existing reasonable gun management and control initiatives already in place.
Gun Control laws can potentially affect violence rates in a number of ways. Guns could provide protection, put people at risk, encourage crime or even cause death. The availability of guns could could enable violent crimes or possibly help to stop them (Kleck and Paterson 2). Many criminals choose guns in violent actions over other weapons most likely due to their accessibility and long range threat. Some people believe you should control guns, while others believe there is nothing wrong.
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.
Every day some news related to gun violence are being heard all over the world. Shooting in driveway, public places, schools, homicide and suicide are some of different types of gun violence. Shooting on people and killing them is a big issue in the world and different comments are provided about that. One of the most important of them is about gun control laws. Stingl (2013) says “The term gun control as it is used in the United States refers to any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens.” According to this idea gun control laws should be stricter and people should not be able to have access to guns easily. However, there are many other people who believe this idea is not a good solution and never help. This essay will demonstrate for and against views about the topic. People who agree with this idea consider: firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence and gun control means crime control. Secondly, some research shows people with gun are more at risks of getting shot. Thirdly, guns can always be misused by their owners and finally, stricter law is the best and the faster way to control crime and make community safe. While opponents say first of all, guns are necessary for people safety and protection. Secondly, guns are not the only tools for killing and violence; there are other weapons too and finally, gun ownership is human rights.
The Crux,. 'If You Believe In "Gun Control," This Is Probably Not For You... '. N.p., 2014. Web. 30 Oct.