Get a Knife, Get a Dog but Get Rid of Guns by Molly Ivin

In areas where crime is high, guns can keep law-abiding citizens safe. As stated by

Say your worst fear comes into play; a robber has declared war onto your home. Someone has invaded your safe place to steal your belongings and hurt your family. What would you do? Would you want to be vulnerable and defenseless, or would you want to have a weapon to protect yourself? I for one, would like to possess a gun to protect myself. The Bill of Rights is the basic rights we are granted as American citizens. I disagree with the article “End the Gun Epidemic in America,” for a multitude of reasons. This article claims that the answer to stopping heinous crimes in America is to ban guns or at least have serious restrictions and regulations on them. On the contrary, I believe banning guns leaves citizens defenseless while presenting criminals with a greater field of opportunity.

Americans are faced with a big issue of violence in the streets, these streets where elderly people are beaten for their money and women are attacked and raped. Sadly, some people believe that the best way to deal with these violent occurrences is to pass gun control laws that take away legally owned guns from everyone. Not only does gun control end up disarming the innocent but it also violates the Second Amendment. By taking away guns from the American citizens, whom the Second Amendment bestowed onto us this act violates our rights. Unfortunately for those who have legally armed themselves for self-defense, gun control would eventually strip away their ability to fend for themselves. Gun control will also end up causing a rise in crime. By taking away arms from good law abiding citizens and leaving them defenseless, it makes things much easier for criminals by knowing that their victims are not armed. Although the gun ban would take away guns from stores, a criminal will find a way to get their hands on one, imagine that. Gun controls are taking away our rights as citizens. If a law abiding citizen happens to enjoy hunting, they will lose that right. Gun controls are also taking away weapons from citizens. Gun control is not having a positive effect on America because it violates the second amendment, takes away rights and it won’t reduce the crime rate.

The most common reason why people argue that they need to have a gun is for safety, so they can protect themselves against burglars. If a burglar would come into your house, you would have a better chance defending yourself and your family with a gun, than if you did not have a gun. The number of concealed weapon owners is at an all time high. In comparison the number of homicides had drastically decreased alongside the growing rate of legal concealed weapons. This number had been nearly cut in half in the past 20 years(Goldberg).

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

Gun Control has been a controversy for as long as people can remember. This Controversy has increased recently due to the mass shootings taken place all over the United States. Gun control has its pros and cons, Some believe “Gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions.”While others say that the Second Amendment “protects an individual’s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime.” To be able to pick a side one must look at the argument from both perspectives, that 's what this paper accomplishes. You must go into detail about this issue and conduct research to form your own opinion.

of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be

With all the murders that happen in our country, it’s only logical for people to want a way to protect not only themselves, but their loved ones as well. However, the opposing argument would be that having these weapons is what causes the problem. While this is correct, people can use everyday objects as weapons. They

Gun control and gun rights are crucial topics that have been debated for years. Some people believe that civilians should not have the right to own a gun while others believe it is our god given right to bear arms. The second amendment of the Bill of Rights states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”(Shermer). This is a right that society has had for years and is one of the main reasons why no solution has been reached yet. There are two main sides to this debate, Gun control advocates focus on the serious negative effects of gun availability on health and safety, while gun-ownership advocates emphasize the lawful use of guns and

The argument that the second amendment protects private ownership of a gun is invalid, even according to the United States government. On the other hand, guns are not wholly to blame for all killings and suicides because education and treatment could decrease the likelihood.

The second amendment of The Constitution of the Unites States rules that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In recent years this has become a highlighted and popular discussion topic throughout people and media. Typical with American media the subject of gun control is visited with broad stroked of red and the use of fear tactics while completely ignoring the complicated and underling positives and negatives of public access to firearms and the benefits and risks associated with this freedom. Most people do not carry a weapon at all and may question others who do because of the moderately low risk of being a victim of a crime. Those how carry however like to think “Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.”

In her essay, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns”, Molly Ivins discusses the highly debated topic of gun control. She argues that guns are an unnecessary evil to all of humanity and that permitting them to inexperienced and unregulated citizens only spoils the national security of the United States of America. Ivins quotes the Second Amendment as saying that guns were primarily intended to be used by a “well-regulated militia”. Thus, she believes that anyone who wants to own a gun should be subject to extensive training: “That is the least, the very least, that should be required of those who are permitted to have a gun” (385). Ivins goes on to say that guns are extremely dangerous and they should be banned, or at the very least strictly regulated (384-386). While Ivins reasonably discusses the issue of gun control in her op-ed, she does not adequately support her claims with substantial evidence or research about the negative impacts that guns have had on our society. She also seems unwilling to be open-minded about the opinions of the opposing side, calling them “gun-nuts” with a power hang-up (386). In conclusion, Ivins’ essay is not effective in urging readers who are pro-gun to change their views and she does not help reinforce the beliefs of people who oppose firearms.

In the Article “Fear” by Marilynn Robinson, Robinson concludes that the cause of fear in many citizens deals partly with the second amendment meaning the right to carry and bear arms. Being said that, Robinson Attempts to convince the reader that the possession of weapons should be abolished due to the violence in The United States. People all around are facing violence, not necessarily due to weapons, but due to the fact that they cannot have the sort of self-protection. American citizens should be in favor of the second amendment because it keeps them safe when they carry weapons as a form of protection.

(Ivins 324) She also add that, “this is no longer a frontier nation in which people hunt their own food.” This is clearly ridiculous claim. Many people still hunt and rely on hunting to get meat. I personally know several people who hunt, some because it is a more affordable way to get meat for their families. I have a friend whose husband spends a lot of his time hunting and he even gives away a majority of his meat to people who are less fortunate. She also claims that all guns do is kill. (Ivins 324) This is also false, they can be used recreationally at shooting ranges. One of my favorite memories with my father is when he took my brother and me to a shooting range when we were teenagers. He had an old single shot pistol and he taught us how to shoot and handle a gun. My grandfather had a huge collection of antique guns all throughout his house. As children my brother and I always loved looking at his collection and it was something he took great pride in. Guns are not just for killing they can be used for defense and protection as well as a way for people to bond over a shared interest and they can be used for hunting and even for charity. Her final point is that England has effectively banned guns in their country and people there are fine. (Ivins 324) While it is true that England has less gun violence since banning guns they have not seen any significant decline in murder

The general argument made by the author, Shiha Dalmia, in her work, The Case Against Banning Guns, is that the government cannot take away the rights of guns from millions of people. They cannot think that removing the second amendment will make it easier for potential killers to not get a gun, even when there are millions of guns around the world. More specifically, it will not be easy to tell people to give up their guns to make the world a safer place. Maybe there will be a few people willing to hand over their guns because they do not want anymore mass murders. Then again, not all murderers are performed with guns, surprisingly some are by vehicles.