In the news article “Taking A Stab At Our Infatuation With Guns” by Molly Ivins she asserts the idea that in order to possess a gun, people should get a license to own one or to not own one at all. According to Irvin, the cliché that “guns do not kill, people do” helps her argument stand out. It helps asserts her idea, because she says that the guns main use is to kill. Ivins is certain that people who are crazy should not be allowed to own a gun, and that only those who want to be a part of “a well-regulated militia”. Her reasoning behind it is she does not accept kids who own gun or are in reach of gun does not put all of us in a safer place.…
In the article by Molly Ivins, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But get Rid of Guns” talks about her point of view on gun control. It should be banned or at least restricted. She starts her argument that she is not anti gun but believes in other forms of protections. In order to support her arguments she uses second amendment by breaking it down word to word. Also use the pros of using knives with a sarcastic humor.…
In her article “Get A Knife, Get A Dog, but Get Rid of Guns.” by Molly Ivins discusses her disapproval of guns as protection. Specifically, Ivins explains how guns harm civilization and do more harm than good. Ivins also states an alternative to guns that won't easily kill. Molly Ivins is correct for three reasons.…
Molly Ivin’s view is she is not antigun she is pro knife .She supports the second amendment and believes that all children 14 and under are too young to be having guns. And having so many guns owners is destroying our security of this Free State. She believes that guns should stay in the hands of the armed forces and military. She states that like automobiles if u can handle them what makes u think u can handle a gun and with having a license and tracking of selling car she feels that it should be the same way for guns.…
For my final project I have chosen to use the arguments for banning guns. I do not agree with these arguments but, I will attempt to address their statements and provide a sound counter argument for each of their points that I discuss. During this final project I hope that I can help shed light on the subject for both sides of the argument and come to a common ground. I believe that is the point of making arguments and counter arguments. It is to get the issue out in the open and make sound decision, based in fact, that is the best possible out comes for both parties.…
While comparing the two articles ‘The Case for Banning Guns’ and ‘The Case Against Banning Guns’ the one that makes the most sense and is the most logical is the latter choice. While both sides made realistic arguments, the author, Paul Waldman, choice of words point the reader to believe that he realizes his view is unobtainable. Throughout the second article, the author, Shiha Dalmia, had many valid points, including the example used to reiterate her point about the fact that the biggest mass murders in America in the entire last century have been done without the use of guns.…
I don't think she understands that if guns were banned or illegal like drugs people will always find a way to them because they were/are already been made. Just like people find their way to drugs because it's already here it's already made. Yes, there would possibly be a difference but it would most likely not change a lot of things. She also tells us how instead of the militias using guns they could study killing people with their bare hands. The problem with is there is always someone bigger and stronger than you no matter what and if the lets say the police show up with fist and a person has a weapon or they are just stronger than that fight could be quite unfair very…
Gun Control Gun control has been a major issue in the past few years, and many journalists have written columns and essays in newspapers that are expressing their opinions on the subject. Nicholas Kristof, whom has been writing for newspapers for over ten years, took it upon himself to write Our Blind Spot about Guns for the New York Times in 2014. In his essay, Nicholas argued that if we set laws and regulations on guns the same way that we have done to cars, the amount of deaths caused by guns would decrease dramatically. He uses various statistics and discusses multiple ways that regulations and laws have decreased the amount of deaths caused by cars, and he relates it back to guns in his very well written essay. Nicholas seems to be addressing politicians in his essay, but his overall audience are those who are reading the newspaper.…
“The National Canine Research Council had a four-day study on dog-bite reports to show the media that they were bias against pitbulls (“Pit Bull Bias in the Media”). While doing this study they found that between August eight tenth through the twenty first of 2007 there happened to be 4 severe attacks on humans by different breeds of dogs. Their findings are summarized by “The American…
Every year hundreds of people within various communities are bitten by dogs. Some are bitten by wild dogs, while others are bit by domestic dogs. Each and every dog has the capability to bite a human but it appears that only one breed is being punished for it, pit bulls. The issue about the community supporting the council in prohibiting unregistered dogs for a safer community has been prominent in the media in recent years since poor Ayen Chol was brutally attacked. In the feature article ‘owners dump dangerous dogs to avoid penalties" published in the Herald sun, on the 07/09/11, by Grant McArthur and Alex White contends that pitbull are dangerous animals. In an outraged tone, the article targets pitbull owners, imposing the ideology that they should take more responsibility of their obligations.…
The role guns play in our society has long been a controversial topic for the past few years in the united states. There are those who believe that guns do not belong in the hands of citizens and there are those who believe that guns are the foundation that protects our rights and liberties stated in the Constitution. There are too many leading factors as to why there should not be any stricter gun control laws. Some of these factors are that they go against our fundamental rights of self defense, give too much power to the government, and could potentially increase crime rates in the united states.…
There is this massive debate on whether or not the U.S should carry gun laws. In my perspective, I believe that we should not allow guns, but I know many people would disagree. If we banned guns, it would limit the violence in our country. The news would stop saying so and so people dead. Everyone, including children and adults, would be safe and happy knowing that no gun would harm them.…
For the last couple of years, gun control has continued to be a huge controversial debate in Congress. This argument over whether gun control laws should be strict is nothing new to the world of politics. The ideas of gun control consist of laws that either keep away firearms from people, or allow one to keep guns for personal protection. They also control who the guns are being sold to and who can own them. In America, each state government has passed many gun control laws. Many people think that gun control is right because they think keeping people away from guns will reduce the amount of deaths each year. They also think that guns cause many of the deaths that had been committed each year. Whenever people hear the word gun, the thoughts…
Guns do a lot of bad, but do a lot more good for society. Banning guns will not stop the problem, but will just make it worse. Guns are apart of our society as Americans they have been around since colonial years, and are not leaving anytime soon. “The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half. (Kristof, The Times).” Guns offer protection for individuals. One day you could be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and a shooting breaks out, you will pray there is someone else there with a concealed firearm to help control the situation while waiting for police to arrive. They can’t do that if guns are banned. “We need to understand that we cannot stop crimes and murders. And banning guns would be a step, or two, backwards instead of moving forward in the right direction (The Times News).” The research conducted to produce this paper was drawn from a multitude of sources all with different…
What would you say if you knew that there are more crimes with gun control than there is without it? Gun control is a terrible idea for society in so many ways that it’s not even funny. Because there will be those people out there that will figure out how to beat the system and keep guns in their possession, to harm a lot of people maybe even have a mass shooting. Well guess what and nobody else will have guns to protect their self’s or shoot that guy who’s start a mass shooting on a punch unarmed citizens. There is a bunch of data that proves that gun control increases the crime rates. Also conceal and carry helps with self-defense. And taking away guns is a horrible choice and it would be just plain stupid. Here’s something Linda Schmittroth said about gun control that I agree with a hundred percent, “In contrast proponents of the individual rights argument…