Anti Gun Arguments
The famed English author Christopher Hitchens once said, “I always think it’s a sign of victory when they move on to the ad-hominem,” and the quote could not be any more relevant to the article located on page 214 in the “Critical Approaches to Reading, Writing, and Thinking” textbook, which can be titled “Guns” for the use of this essay. While “Guns” may be a pro-firearm, pro-second amendment article at its heart, the anonymous author misses the mark when he resorts to borderline ad-hominem attacks against the “unreasonable”, “control fanatics” of the gun control lobby. The author’s bias leaves the reader uninformed about more viable counter-arguments to the rhetoric of the anti-gun sector, misrepresents the arguments of the opposing viewpoint,
…show more content…
The essay reads to be more in opposition of the anti-firearm group than it does their argument. For example, the article opens with “Gun control advocates say they want society to be safer, but that’s a lie. What they really want is to take firearms away from decent, honest citizens and leave the guns in the hands of criminals.” Now, assuming the author isn’t a subscribing member of the anti-gun coalition completely exposing the secret agenda of the party, this is a monumental allegation. The author continues, “They are always telling scary stories…”, and that may be true, but why not present an alternative to the anti-gun argument of “…people are being killed with guns and a gun in the home actually makes you less safe because an angry spouse or careless child might find it,”? As an example, gun control advocates often point to the idea that by banning guns, murder rates would fall. The obvious counter-argument for gun-enthusiasts would be to point to Chicago, a city where firearm restrictions are the toughest, and their growing murder rate. In 2015, the Chicago Police Department reported 468 murders and 2,900 shootings, increases of 12.5% and 13%, respectively, from the previous year. (USAToday.com, 2016, para. 5) If the author of “Guns” wanted to seem less biased, he should have presented better
The essay reads to be more in opposition of the anti-firearm group than it does their argument. For example, the article opens with “Gun control advocates say they want society to be safer, but that’s a lie. What they really want is to take firearms away from decent, honest citizens and leave the guns in the hands of criminals.” Now, assuming the author isn’t a subscribing member of the anti-gun coalition completely exposing the secret agenda of the party, this is a monumental allegation. The author continues, “They are always telling scary stories…”, and that may be true, but why not present an alternative to the anti-gun argument of “…people are being killed with guns and a gun in the home actually makes you less safe because an angry spouse or careless child might find it,”? As an example, gun control advocates often point to the idea that by banning guns, murder rates would fall. The obvious counter-argument for gun-enthusiasts would be to point to Chicago, a city where firearm restrictions are the toughest, and their growing murder rate. In 2015, the Chicago Police Department reported 468 murders and 2,900 shootings, increases of 12.5% and 13%, respectively, from the previous year. (USAToday.com, 2016, para. 5) If the author of “Guns” wanted to seem less biased, he should have presented better