Are Background Checks Needed for Gun Sales at Gun Shows? Essay

The following critical analysis of the Essay, “The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms” by Lee Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School, William Van Alstyne, is intended to highlight a few of the different short-comings and argumentative fallacies presented by even the most legally astute individuals who oppose forms of gun control. While the author does present a multi-facet and well-orchestrated presentation of fact and principle, there are two essential claims being asserted on his part. The author’s intent is to demonstrate the importance of gun right protection and to justify the NRA’s practices in the name of doing so. In my dissection of the essay, I intend to demonstrate the argumentative fallacies and examine the ways in which the NRA is generally harmful to the progression of gun control reform, and therefore public safety in the United

In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of

Violence and crimes are growing in number and affecting American society. By reinforcing background checks we could reduce crimes and limit easy gun access to mentally ill people. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a database where the names of people that have committed a misdemeanor, are mentally ill or drug abusers is kept to prevent them from attaining guns. Most criminals buy guns from unlicensed sellers at gun shows that don’t do properly background checks through the NICS, making it easier from criminals to purchase firearms. Another problem is missing records or information that was not reported to the background check system. Better background checks could reduce crime and gun violence in America.

He parallels his diction with the subject of gun control by addressing both liberals and conservatives in his article. He does this not only because he wants to address a variety of different people who might be affected by this problem, but also because the problem does not affect one area. It affects the whole United States, like it affects all people. Kristof uses this parallelism to emphasize how far gun control reaches, and how nobody is doing anything beneficial. He includes that “All these gun permits [granted] cause neither a drop in crime (as conservatives had predicted) nor a spike in killings (as liberals had expected).” Kristof proves both groups of people wrong at the beginning of his article to emphasize how the problem is greater than just them, and to describe how neither group is doing anything beneficial. Another strategy Kristof strategically employs is his appeal to logic. Kristof incorporates multiple statistic accounts to inform the reader, and persuade them that there has been no change in what the government has been participating in. “[M]ore Americans have died from guns than all the Americans who died in wars going back to the American Revolution (about 1.45 million vs. 1.4 million).” This example causes the reader to ponder about the reality of the situation and decide if the situation is logical. The studies that Kristof references, and all the data he incorporates into his article, causes the reader to want to believe him because it appears that he researched the topic, and obtained reliable sources, such as Daniel W. Webster, a gun safety specialist. In addition to his use of appeals, Kristof also includes his prominent rhetorical questions. The rhetorical questions allow the reader to contemplate what they would do if they had a chance to solve the problem. One question that pertains to this is, “So why does nothing get done?”

A hot-button topic in the world of U.S. politics today is the controversy over whether or not new gun laws need to be instituted to keep Americans safe. We are a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and one that sticks to traditional values. With this, comes a great deal of incongruity, which makes for a very sensitive debate on gun control. On one side of the spectrum, we have those who take a more liberal stance; while they do in fact support the second amendment, there is no doubt that the U.S. has evolved significantly since the Constitution was written, hence creating a need for strict gun laws. On the other side of the spectrum, conservatives argue that as soon as executive action inhibits the fundamental principles in which

Laws regulating the use of guns in America have been a hot topic for years. Media coverage of mass shootings, acts of terrorism in and outside of the United States, and stories of families being murdered in the night has resulted in a desensitized, or perhaps, overly sensitized nation. People are scared and have centered their idea of safety on one of two main approaches: creating stricter gun laws so less crime occurs, or taking away gun restrictions so everyone can protect themselves against crime. Policies stemming from these vantage points begin by the agenda set by pertinent support and opposition groups, reflecting these approaches.

On June 17, 2016, an editor from the St. Louis Post Dispatch published an article, “Now is the time for common-sense gun control,” that briefly talks about how gun lobbyists are striking fear on the citizens and how gun control advocates need to keep pushing harder. The writer also reviews the Second Amendment and how gun culture affects today’s society.

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

Some Democratic and Republican leaders and followers are interested in a bi-partisan middle ground when it comes to gun control. President Obama proposed a “Common-sense gun safety reform”. This would include, businesses that are selling firearms must be licensed to do so, expanded background checks, and improve mental health outreach (Rienzi, 2016). A majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions (ProCon.org, 2016).

The article “Treasure the Second Amendment, but Ban Assault Rifles” discovered on Opposing Viewpoints was originally published at NewsMax.com, and authored by Judith Miller. The title suggests a forthcoming article in which the current interpretation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is expressly valid, but will present an argument for the banning of Assault Rifles. However, this article provides no evidence or statistics to show how an assault weapon ban might have success, but instead, argues it's position by bemoaning apathetic past and current presidents, detailing several horrific tragedies seemingly attributed to the expiration of the previous ban, and singling out a specific assault weapon, but fails establish a legitimate argument against Assault Rifles.

Guns are one of the most controversial and debated-upon topics in America today. In the Constitution, Americans are given “the right to bear arms,” and many Americans are proud of and believe strongly in that right. Though, that right has been constantly misused. Homicides by gun are at a higher rate in the United States than any other country in the world, mass shootings are at an all time high (many of which have occurred in the past two years alone), and terrorism has been at an all-time high. So, naturally, it is a topic that needs to be discussed. In the articles Change Your Gun Laws, America (1), author Fareed Zakaria provides the readers with some harrowing statistics on guns and insight over how the U.S. laws on guns need to be managed.

The term “gun control” deals with the regulation of the selling, purchasing, and using of firearms in America. The availability of firearms to the public has been causing serious debates around the country because of the diversity in the people’s cultures, judgment, and religions. Many people thought the provision set by the Second Amendment when it was ratified can perfectly be applied in the society today. However, the understanding of people about the Second Amendment and how they interpret it change over time. They cannot agree with each other about the meaning of the historical evidence (Karlan, 2013). Research and polls found that people in the rural areas tend to support the right of gun owners while those in urban areas encourage gun control. Due

In the United States of America the right to bear arms gave birth to a phenomenon called the “gun culture,” the term coined in 1970 by a historian Richard Hofstadter, which describes America’s heritage and affection for weapons(1). Not only did gun culture become an inseparable part of American democracy, but also it is considered to be synonymous with independence and freedom, the most important values for American society. Even though the crime rate and murder rate in the U.S. is higher than in any other developed country, U.S. citizens oppose every attempt made to pass gun control legislation(2). However, it may sound like a paradox, but the crime level in the most liberal states, when it comes to gun ownership, is the lowest in the

In James Q. Wilson’s New York Times article, “Just Take Away Their Guns,” Wilson sufficiently reasons how the elimination of illegal guns on the streets should be the central focus in determining the limits regarding American gun control regulations which are frequently debated in our modern world. While Wilson makes an effective argument, at times, he racially profiles which is a definite form of deceptive reasoning; in addition, many of Wilson’s arguments lack the elaboration he needs to avoid making hasty assertions.

Gun control has a history dating back to 1791, when the Second Amendment of the Constitution was ratified. However, more recently, the debate over gun control has escalated into a much more public issue to which many citizens can relate. After all, stories about incidents involving guns appear frequently today in newspapers and on television or the radio. One could say that the debate started with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned ownership of guns by certain groups of people and regulated the sale of guns. Since then, two main groups have gradually appeared: people who oppose strict federal