Molly Ivins Against Guns Summary

Molly Ivins argues against the common ownership of guns in America is pointless, and that it will only result in negative consequences. In her column, she argues against the common ownerships of guns in America by pointing out that the second amendment’s original intent does not configure with current forms of gun ownership. She argues there are several impracticalities that have evolved from the legal doctrines of gun ownership. She argues against the use of guns by offering substitutes to the reasons why people own guns in the first place. One of her biggest arguments for the substitution of guns is to use a knife instead, and she begins to explain why a knife can be a better fit for the reasons people typically like to own guns. Molly uses several false

“In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness.” Ivins is implying that people with guns are constantly in pursuit of shooting other people. And that guns are readily available to people who would possess tendencies to seek out opportunities to murder other people. She’s equating people who own guns to bloodthirsty murderers. People with actual homicidal tendencies, like Molly’s description, would suggest a record institutionalization or the presence of a criminal record by the time they are the legal age required to purchase a firearm. And people with these characteristics often have criminal records, or are institutionalized. Both of these things would disqualify you from being able to legally purchase a firearm. There are several checkpoints in the gun purchasing process that would make it very difficult for a person who would actively seek out opportunities to kill to legally purchase a weapon. Molly is describing a gun as if any old joe can go pick one up. This is not the