Advertisements For Gun Control

With the onslaught of gun control debates happening in the world today, listening is one of the first steps to solving the problem. Whenever a person opposing gun control appears on television people are quick to commentate over them, and talk about how bad their agenda is and how it will put people in danger. The same goes when a person supporting gun control appears, everyone talks over them with their family about how it would strip their rights away and ruin democracy. No matter the side you stand on, just listening to the political commercials will help end the debate. People that oppose gun control

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

The organization behind this ad is Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, commonly known as Moms Demand Action, which was found in response to the devastating Sandy Hook shooting back in 2012. Although it started as Facebook page, it has grown to a 130,000 members strong from 50 districts. The organization stands to fight against the epidemic of gun violence while still supporting the 2nd amendment to the constitution. The creators of this ad campaign did a really good job attracting its audience. Anyone would be curious to know why two kids, one carrying a fully automatic assault rifle, another holding a children’s book are seated next to each other, in what seems to be a classroom or children’s library.

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 media gladly celebrities people who commit mass shootings and it seems we here about them every day. Despite the fact that gun crime is actually decreasing and owning a firearm is technically one of the safests products you can buy due to there being about 1 per person in the United States and only a tiny fraction of a percent of them are used in crimes. When we hear about all these shootings though we also start to overlook other things that have high death tools, such as drinking and driving, mal medial practice, or even overdose. People think gun violence is through the roof but people are losing sight that there are many other things just as common that kill far more people per year. That is what this ad is trying to remind us

Perry Chiaramonte’s recent article entitled “Gun groups accused of ‘swatting’ open-carry permit holders, putting lives at risk” is unrealistic in its accusations, as well as inflammatory. This article defines swatting as “the act of tricking an emergency service into dispatching responders based on a false report” and manufatures the outrageous claim that the people with guns are the victims when the people who are calling the police feel as if they are in enough danger to do so. Online campaigns for stricter gun control laws are made out to seem ludicrous in nature and are the enemy of the sane public. The usage of quotes in this article is quite one sided as well in an attempt to slant the opinion of the audience. Chiarmonte constantly neglects to consider the ‘other’ side of the argument and therefore falls flat in giving a ‘fair and balanced’ evaluation of the situation.

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

Because of many incidents involving handguns, and any other type of gun, the government has been trying to push a gun ban law. As a result of this rumor and possible law, there have been numerous outbursts of support and resistance. Some people believe that banning firearms would be a benefit to our nation’s safety and its population’s safety, while others oppose this proposal and say that guns are not the ones that need to be controlled, people should be the ones that are controlled. During this decision, people from different organizations have expressed their own views and thoughts. Gun control has both positive and negative effects on U.S. citizens.

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.

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 bad. Guns are not for everyone. Some individuals cannot handle guns properly, and some choose to use guns inappropriately. Lately, guns have become more of a problem in our society. There has been an increasing amount of shootings that have taken many lives and have wounded people emotionally, not just physically. Although guns are used for protection, firearms are reportedly used more in crimes. More and more shootings are breaking out across the nation. As a result, the

The debate over stricter gun laws has been ongoing in the United States for quite some time now. Individuals who oppose stricter gun control laws argue that the second amendment to the constitution of the United States constitute part of the bill of rights that protect the right of American citizens to bear arms, and any attempt to set up laws for gun control will be a direct violation of this (Hofstadter 10). They argue that the primary purpose of the amendment was to ensure that American Citizens had the capability to protect themselves against criminal activities and defend the country against external aggression. From a personal perspective, the recent surge in instances of gun violence in the United States of America indicates that stricter gun control laws are necessary for the safety of the American citizenry. Thus, this paper is going to focus on highlighting the benefits of more stringent gun control laws and why members of the public should support it.

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

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 in various parts of the world. There is a big debate on whether the gun laws are strict enough. It is sad to hear about some sort of gun violence or death of a person each day on the news or social media. Each day more and more lives are affected and thought of not seeing tomorrow arises. The question comes up of how the United States can stop the casualties of thousands. The answer is to get rid of handguns. The best way to put a stop to all of these deaths is showing awareness. The author of the poster tries to portray a huge public service announcement and bring awareness to how handguns are killing and destroying a country.

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 “Mama didn’t raise no victim”, the woman, and the stance of the woman holding the gun. By looking at these key points of the ad, I was able to view the ad the way the NAGR intended me to. From there, I took it upon myself to read into the major points of the ad and interpret the significance behind them, enabling me to draw conclusions from the image and create questions.

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