Guns By Sunday Night Live And The Daily Show

On average, there is a shooting throughout the country where the victim was left defenseless each day. even with strict gun control laws set in by the federal government, many Americans still have faith in our second amendment. Gun control is proven ineffective, According to Richard Epstein of the New york University of Law, “We can confidently predict that crime will go up unless and until there is a vast expansion of the public police force.” (Epstein 1). While gun control law are in place there are still too many guns for the federal government to keep track of within the country, Richard Epstein states that “upwards of 200 million firearms of all descriptions are available for general use in the United States.” (Epstein 2). With recent

In his article “If We’re Gonna Have Guns, Let’s Get ‘em Out in the Open--Or Else,” Mike Royko utilizes a satirical tone to express how he feels the gun law passed in Kennesaw, Georgia is a childish and impractical one. This law, which was passed in the early 1980s, requires all citizens to have a gun and ammunition in their homes. The first example demonstrated is the utilization of diction. In his article, Royko uses words such as “obvious,” blazing away,” and “meet his maker” which expresses a childish and satirical attitude toward the subject. This shows that Royko didn’t take the Kennesaw gun law seriously and felt that it was a childish and impractical one. Another technique used was a the contradictory statement, “That might surprise

Taya Kyle, the author of the article “American Sniper Widow: Gun Control Won’t Protect Us”, believes that there are two sides of the argument on gun control. People can use statistics, facts, and real life examples to argue that there should be stricter control of guns in the US, but they cannot eliminate the emotional side of the story. While in the last two decades, violent crime rates have actually been reduced in the US, fears have gone up. Anyone can be a victim of a violent crime because if another person decides to do harm, they will do it under any circumstances.

It appears as though the repetitive and unfortunate tragedies of mass shootings have become incorporated into the everyday life of American culture. We are forced to live in a heightened degree of fear, skepticism, and hesitation concerning our public safety. This phenomenon could reasonably occur in response to the vast ineffectiveness of the country’s current gun laws. Time after time similar misfortunes arise, yet few major changes are implemented to prevent them from reoccurring in the future. We cannot let this trend continue any further. Though some claim that increased gun control is useless and infringes upon the Second Amendment, it limits civilians’ weapons grade, obstructs those deemed unfit to wield such lethal weapons, and insures a greater level of security, thus it should be executed.

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.

Franken was also able to downplay the usefulness of a firearm by including a series of sarcastic tips for tragedy in a home. For example, “1. Keep the gun loaded… 2. Put the gun in an unlocked drawer... 3. Rest assured.”1 Where Franken’s article comes up short is the use of hypothetical numbers to exaggerate and intensify the deadliness of guns. His sarcasm adds diversity to his piece, but should be used sparingly. Franken’s conclusion causes his argument to lose its effectiveness, after building his case it just seems ridiculous and out of place.

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

When we hear the term gun control, we think of opposing sides of the topic arguing whether citizens should continue to have the right to bear arms or not, including the possible consequences of continuing the use of the second amendment. As we know, gun violence is one a the major political issues that has caused public corruption and still continue to this day. During Barack Obama’s eight year term of presidency, he announced his thoughts and plan for change on how to limit gun control violence. He discusses how gun control can affect the lives of citizens physical and mental health, along with overall lifestyle. Barack shares past tragedies of gun violence and how gun control has played a huge role into our society. Throughout this speech Barack Obama gives on gun control, he persuades the public by using ethos, pathos, and logos to highlight the important concepts for change of this amendment.

At first glance, Michael Moore’s documentary “Bowling for Columbine” appears to highlight the ubiquitous issue of gun violence in the United States. However, in actuality, the documentary exposes the fear mongering that exacerbates Americans’ affinity for violence through the use of satire in cartoons and interviews. To begin, Moore summarizes the history of America with a satirical cartoon that depicts Americans as cowardly people. It is evident from the cartoon that America has a history of fear mongering since citizens are always fearful of something, whether it be the Aboriginals or African Americans disrupting the picturesque Caucasian suburbia, all without a probable cause. As a result, citizens utilize this mentality of fear to justify

The satirical piece, ‘The President’s New Gun’, is based on Hans Christian Andersen’s short story, ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’. The piece ridicules the current situation of gun control in the United States of America, which has gained attention due to the multitude of recent shootings across the country. Through reading the piece, people in America, as well as around the world are able recognise the American Government’s inability to control the issue, and the criticism of young people who are brave enough to take action. The piece is structured as a narrative, and follows a similar plot to the original story by Andersen.

Three years after the massacre at Columbine High School, left-wing political filmmaker Michael Moore released his award winning documentary ‘Bowling for Columbine,’ which persuasively conveyed his negative view on the ownership and retail of guns and ammunition in America. Moore’s emphatic use of documentary techniques and fallacies collaborate to strengthen his biased message, that America’s questionable attitude towards firearms is the primary cause of the Columbine High School massacre and other acts of arm related violence. Throughout the film, Moore continually utilizes such techniques as juxtaposition, where he creates irony to weaken an opposing argument though disparity. Furthermore, the use of a cartoon segment serves to satirise the opposing point of view, combined with interviews where hard hitting questions are carefully chosen to attempt to catch the subject off guard.

Gun control licenses can be given to individuals who use a firearm as a sport or for hunting which brings people together for a common and love sport or their hobbies. One view that has become powerful talking points in the rise of gun crimes, especially during mass shootings, is a result of “cultural scripts.” (Wierzbicka & Goddard, 2004). These are the pattern of interaction which is unique to a particular culture in

Michael Moore’s flawed 2002 expository documentary Bowling for Columbine is ineffective in its goals to open Americas eyes to its very serious gun violence problem. Michael Moore sets out to uncover why the United States can’t seem to end its devastating and reoccurring mass shootings, by using deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect, Moore attempts to vilify pro-gun activists. The humorous documentary frequently highpoints controversial decisions and actions made by the then President of the National Rifle Association Charlton Heston. Bowling also raises issues such as the ease of buying pointless high powered assault weapons just about anywhere, and American media’s film first ask later attitude towards gun crimes and social and racial issues. Americans are left even more paranoid and hostile than ever before, something the documentary should have set out to end.

In his speech on new gun control measures, Barack Obama outlines a number of executive actions he plans to put forth to curb gun violence and loopholes that allow criminals to obtain firearms. Obama, president from 2008 to current day, directs his want for change towards the audience of American voters. Congress was not on his side when he called for required background checks for all who wish to purchase a weapon. The purpose of his speech is to provide a reasoning that will appeal to both political parties, and persuade people from all backgrounds to make a change with him. Barack Obama's speech on gun control is a credible source for academic writing because he effectively uses ethos, pathos, and logos to make an argument for stricter gun laws.

Almost one hundred years after the drafting of the Constitution the first semi-automatic weapon was introduced in 1885 (Semi-Automatic Firearms 1), long before it seems like mass shootings are in the news every week. When writing "the second amendment, I guess, our forefathers wanted us to have AK-47's" (Kimmel 5). Comedian Jimmy Kimmel poses this important thought after the devastating results of the Las Vegas shooting where Stephen Paddock modified many legal semi-automatic weapons to shoot like automatic guns. When the forefathers of the United States drafted the Constitution, did they realize the repercussions that would eventually follow. In his monologue, Kimmel attempts to wake America up and realize how large the issue at hand is. With the utilization of rhetorical devices such as logos, juxtaposition, and cause-effect sentence structure, Kimmel tries to make the viewers realize that loose gun regulations have dangerous results, and that they need modifications now.