Molly Ivins Guns

Guns are vital in today’s society, dividing the country, especially families with debates over the use of guns. Sarah Vowell is a citizen who disagrees with the use of guns, talking about her experience with a gun and her family in her essay “Shooting Dad”. Using many rhetorical techniques in her essay, she sends a message within her story, telling the audience reading her story that guns are not worth it. Vowell’s use of many different techniques helps the story come to life, explaining her life with guns around and how someone gets weak when someone has a gun around.

Guns have been used throughout history for war, hunting, and protection. Since then, the killing capacity and speed of guns has improved dramatically. Guns have been a part of American culture from its roots. However, as times have changed and guns are no longer a necessity, gun control has become increasingly urgent to prevent unnecessary crime and killings. Guns should be banned for everyone but the law enforcement and military. Guns should be banned to prevent mass shootings and lower crime rates, while being supported by history and the constitution.

For example, one day she noticed an armed man on her land who wanted to shoot ducks. As a result, she could not feel safe even on her territory. Secondly, as the author was vulnerable even while driving her car, her possession of a gun was reasonable. Hasselstrom provides the readers with examples to prove her right. In one of the examples, an unknown car was following her on her way home, and made her stop by flashing a blinding spotlight in her face. Another example depicts a man who was playing cat-and-mouse with Hasselstrom within 30 miles when she was driving in a desolate part of Wyoming. Thirdly, the fact that Hasselstrom did not feel safe even in public places justified her to own a gun. She provided an example of her and her friend being harassed and scared by men while camping in the West. Moreover, looking for some help from the local rangers, she had to face with their carelessness and unwillingness to protect and help.

"Battleground America," written by Jill Lepore, provides a strong history of guns and the way they have changed in the eyes of the American through the years. She proves her point with strong evidence throughout her article, sprinkling it with opinion and argument that is strongly supported. She presents her argument to convince her audience that the open availability of guns allows citizens to undeservingly purchase them by displaying the credibility in her sources, using negative connotations in her speech, and the strength and objectivity only a strong logos appeal can provide.

In Sarah Vowell’s essay she talks about her life and the role her father and guns have played in it. Being a gunsmith, her father’s life revolves around guns and he loves it. This is not a view shared by his daughter who finds that guns are constantly getting in her space. Due to this overabundance of guns and gun-loving ideas in the household and her father trying to force his own republican opinion on her, Sarah has developed a strong distaste for guns.

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.

Countless opinions have been broadcasted on national news media regarding what society ought to do about gun control. This controversial topic sparks many heated debates with people of either position reluctant to compromise. Gun supporters claim that the proposed gun laws infringe on their constitutional right to bear arms. Conversely, others believe that restricted gun access would cause gun violence to decrease. Regardless of what side one stands on, with the increase in gun violence, it is safe to say that something must be done.

It seems like mass-killings, accidental firings and highway snipers have snuck comfortably into our society. Have we accepted mass shootings like Columbine HS, Sandy Hook Elementary and especially our local Lindhurst HS? Even law enforcement is not safe with the murder of five police officers in Dallas in one of our latest mass-shootings. With these famous, headline grabbing news stories, there are countless active shooter and murders that don’t reach national headlines. When is enough, enough? Very few social arguments are more polarizing than gun control. In Molly Ivins, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns”, she takes a strong, passionate position

Molly Ivins’s “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but get Rid of Guns” is the authors personal opinion on how guns should be banned from public use; she argues guns only kill that it would be safer to carry a knife or get a dog to protect us. She uses the Second Amendment to back up her argument about guns being only for the well-trained militia. The claim of the argument is Guns are a Danger, so it’s safer to get a knife or a dog. Ivins’s argument is unclear without addressing the main reasons why guns are bad overall.

While many people believe there should be more gun control and the possibility of banning guns all together, I believe the gun control laws should not be changed. Although there are many reasons that may persuade people to choose to ban guns, I believe that there are several other reasons that lead to all the tragedies with guns in America. Banning guns is not an answer the gun problem in America, there are a few other things that could be done to stop gun violence. In this essay I will tell about why I believe gun control laws should not be changed.

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.

Having guns as a self defense weapon has been one of the most talked topics around the nation for many years, every person has a different opinion but until now no decision has been made about it. When the writer Ann Coulter published the article about why people need to have weapon as self-defense her use of blind disregard of ethos, pathos, and logos. A good Witten anything uses these three basic ideas. Ethos shows how credible the author is. Does she have proof? Does she seem like she knows what she is talking about? Pathos is the emotion one would use to grasp a reader to read their writing. Why would one need to offend their reader? The last important think one needs to use is logos, the logical appeal. One does not want to read an article

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

The controversial issue of gun control is one of the most debatable topics among politicians and civilians alike. This is because of the complexity of gun control and the long history that is related to the subject. Gun control is typically an effort, by the government, to create legislation that regulates the sale and use of firearms within the country. There are various arguments that surround this topic which include gun-related violence, accidents, self-defense, murders, suicide, constitutional rights, and so on. James Q. Wilson, a professor who has taught at Pepperdine University, Harvard University, and the University of California, Los Angeles, and a published author of several books, take a negative stance on the subject of gun control. Wilson contributed to the gun control debate in the last few years with his written op-ed article. According to Wilson, there is no possible method to eradicate the hundreds and millions of guns that exist within the country, restrictive gun laws will not significantly affect the United States’ murder rate, and that guns play an important role in self-defense in everyday lives. Contrary to what Wilson believes, strict gun control is necessary and should be enforced to ensure public safety because gun laws have the power to produce a positive outcome in the long run, reduce gun-related violence, and reduce the numerous risks that gun ownership open.