Advertisements For Gun Control

Gun control has become an increasingly controversial topic in the nation due to the continuous debates relating to gun control and whether or not laws should be passed to make it harder for guns to be obtained. Guns serve for a variety of purposes that range from good to

The high rates of gun violence and accidents in the United States have long aroused public concern, in view of the strong correlation between gun prevalence, many people believe that the United States must adopt stricter gun control measures to reduce the huge number of firearms across the nation. These people are known as gun control proponents, or advocates. However, many other people do not think so. In their eyes, the serious firearm problems do not result from gun prevalence, and many people would say it is not gun’s problem, people are pushing our

1. This is a very controversial topic that discusses the topic to ban or not to ban weapon advertisements. The book states that banning controversial topics may protect youth in particular from messages that may be problematic. Banning ads will also result in products being stigmatized. I personally believe that ads for weapons should be banned but I understand that there are other factors that go into it. These include the First Amendment- freedom of speech. The government allows people to talk about it and since guns are legal, many people believe they should be advertised since it is a personal opinion and this is how many weapon companies make money. I believe that if weapon advertising is not banned then it should at least provide warning

Gun control is an extremely controversial issue in the United States, and the debates around this topic has started many decades ago. According to the article “Gun Rights vs. Gun control” by Brianna Gurciullo, these debates are fueled by the people who defend the gun rights and the people who advocate in favor of gun control. It has been difficult to prove that gun ownership is directly related to an increase in violence due to the fact that researches tend to disagree on the impact of gun ownership in the American society. These debates tend to be brought to the spotlight whenever there is a mass shooting in the United States, which according to Abbey Oldham, who is a reporter from the PBS News Hour, happens quite frequently. However, organizations, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), defend that the laws for gun control violate the Second Amendment of the constitution, which states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” stated Gurciullo. Due to the distinct interpretations of the constitution and the difficulty to agree on the best approach to tackle the issue, this controversy seem to be almost unsolvable.

The debate over gun control has been raging through the American political systems for years. On one side, there is the National Rifle Association (NRA) and 2nd Amendment-citing citizens who use their firearms for hunting and self-defense. On the other, there is Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) and followers of the Brady Campaign who want to ban guns on the basis that they are dangerous. Both sides have strong arguments, anchored in historical precedent and statistical analysis. Anti-gun control lobbyists’ arguments include the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment, the definition of “militia” as any adult male, self-defense, the relative uselessness of permits and regulations, and court cases in favor of firearm possession. Pro-gun control activists

In “Ready, Aim- Voting” September 22, 2016, Gail Collins claims that the controversy between having gun control or even a training session before buying a gun is coming up because of the elections coming up. Collins supports her claim by giving the example of Jason Kander who was in an advertisement to not allow Hillary clinton to take away the “gun rights” americans have. Collins is hoping to make Americans understand that it's not safe to not have some restrictions with guns in public because gun control has been a problem since many years ago. The author shows a persuasive and informative tone in her article because we should think on who we want for our next president and so far, both political parties don’t have good nominees for president

Slide 2: The advertisement I ended up choosing is one done by “MOMS DEMAND ACTION FOR GUN SENSE IN AMERICA” because it really does challenge some of the things our government has done. Think about it, as the ad states, “One child is holding something that’s been banned in America to protect them” and “We ban the game dodgeball because it’s viewed as being too violent. Why not an assault weapon?” which is a valid point. The government will not allow dodgeball to be played in the public school system because it caused many injuries but aren’t assault weapons doing the same? The other way to look at this is through the Constitution though, because it grants United States citizens the right to bear arms so if we take away certain arms, couldn’t this eventually lead to all arms being taken away? All guns are capable of killing or badly injuring someone and a person which makes all guns dangerous. It’s against the Constitution to take all guns away so it’s really a controversial ad.

The divide in the gun control debate is active with both the opposition and advocates of such laws. On the advocate's side for gun control laws, the idea remains that it is the government’s responsibility to “protect the lives, health, and safety of its people” (Carter 2017, 206). This can be attested in a variety of consumer products such as automobiles, paint, and even the removal of advertisements for cigarettes. When any of these products are deemed unsafe, the product is immediately removed. Guns are also a consumer product, but unlike the former lead law enforcer of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) mentioned, “guns have only one purpose: to cause injury or death” (Carter 2017, 207). They cause more injury and death than any other weapon, leading to what is called the “instrumentality effect” (Carter 2017, 207). Gun owners themselves know the danger of this weapon and treat guns with “caution, knowledge, and respect” (Carter 2017, 207). This does not mean banning all firearms but regulating what would be sold to consumers. Even with the guns in circulation and have some amount of regulations in their purchase, stricter laws should be enacted. This is particularly true with the handgun as “about eighty percent of all gun

The ad on gun violence send a message about hand guns. In the ad it had an American theme gun and it said, “Stop handguns before they stop you” (Boyko). This ad brings up one of the biggest problem in today’s society. Over the year’s gun violence has increased significantly

The high rates of gun violence and accidents in the United States have long aroused public concern, in view of the strong correlation between gun prevalence, many people believe that the United States must adopt stricter gun control measures to reduce the huge number of firearms across the nation. These people are known as gun control proponents, or advocates. However, many other people do not think so. In their eyes, the serious firearm problems do not result from gun prevalence, and many people would say it is not gun’s problem, people are pushing our society of violence and murder. Consequently, these people, known as gun control opponents, strongly oppose the gun regulations proposed by control advocates. The two sides of the gun

This article begins with pathos in the form of argument by humor in which Pate sarcastically summarizes the argument of those who advocate gun control at gun shows saying gun shows “have suddenly become an irresistible magnet for foreign terrorists” (par. 1). He also incorporates a large amount of pathos through his word choice for the beginning paragraphs of the article. Pate refers to the argument being made by gun control advocates as “hogwash being sold to the American people in a slick ad campaign” (par. 2). By using the words “hogwash” and “slick ad campaign”, Pate is able to turn the reader against gun control advocacy because he makes it seem as if gun control advocates are trying to sell the American public on an idea that is worthless. Pate also personally attacks Andrew McKelvey who is funding this ad campaign by saying McKelvey is “in a personal crusade to restrict Second Amendment rights” (par. 3). Despite the fact that this is an ad hominem fallacy, this attack instantly turns Pate’s audience against Andrew McKelvey and any issue that he may support because Americans

I chose to write my analytic essay on gun ownership in the United States. I selected an ad that was released by the National Association of Gun Rights and observed it. Four main aspects of the ad that I noticed was the background of the image, the text

Which one is dangerous: Little Red Riding Hood or Gun? Over 7,000 children are hospitalized or killed due to gun violence every year, if that number isn’t shocking enough, an additional 3,000 children die from gun injuries before making it to the hospital, bringing the total number of injured or killed

Two ads both featuring the topic of gun control in America. One ad clearly calls for gun control, while the other advocated for the autonomy of gun users. Both of the ads appeal to one’s emotions as well as comes from credible sources, as both are organizations. Only one of the ads features logic, however the logic is overshadowed by purposeful manipulation of the information used. While the second ad may not contain logical information, in the end this ad is more effective.

d gun regulations is to minimize incidences associated with homicide, mass shooting, and terrorism, besides lowering the likelihood of mentally ill persons and convicted felons acquiring firearms. Over the years, numerous incidences of mass shootings have been witnessed in the United States. These incidences have triggered heated debates on whether tighter gun control measures should be implemented or not. Numerous studies have been carried out to determine the impact of gun control policies in society. This paper conducts a comprehensive review of the study by McGinty, Webster, and Barry (2013), which evaluates the impact of information concerning mass shootings, propagated by the mass media, on support for gun control policy by the public. Additionally, an analysis of other sources containing information on gun control will be carried out.