Molly Ivins On Banning A Gun

Since the beginning of 2018 the United States has seen an increase in outcry both for and against gun control. One of the key contributors to the cesspool of argument is 18 year old Emma Gonzalez. While her goal of spreading awareness of gun violence is noble, her famous “We call B.S.” speech, which put her on the map of pro gun control, committed multiple fallacies. She fails her argument by using an appeal to emotions, appeal to authority, and ad hominem.

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.

The article “Gun Control Laws: Should the United States adopt stronger gun control laws?” focuses on the debate on passing stricter gun control laws. For example, supporters believe that gun control laws will decrease mass shootings and gun violence. Additionally, adopting these laws does not violate the Second Amendment, and as a result it does not limit the government from the use of fire arms when it is necessary. However, opponents argue that the gun control laws will not stop gun violence. The problem is the people holding the gun and not the gun itself. Furthermore, opponents gathered that stronger gun control laws do violate the Second Amendment. The author illustrates the debate on whether the United States should or should not adopt stronger gun control laws.

America needs to institute, and initiate gun control laws throughout the entire nation. But not everybody who inhabits the United States believes in regulating arms. Those who are against establishing gun laws argue that gun control directly infringes upon their “right to bear arms” granted to them by the 2nd Amendment. Anti gun control supporters, such as the National Rifle Association, often claim that the act of regulating guns is a sufficient reason why such an Amendment was introduced in the constitution; to protect themselves from any and all forms of violation of civil liberties and freedom. Supporters of anti gun laws are unwilling to welcome any interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that do not match up “word for word,” as was written in the Bill of Rights.

Should gun laws in America be more limited? This has been a question for generations and generations to come. In 1993, Molly Ivins, a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegraph, wrote an essay called Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns. In the essay, Ivins expresses her judgment on gun control. Ivins believes that guns should be banned, or at least restricted, in the United States. The way Ivins uses evidence throughout her writing is beneficial in which she provides multiple points of view on the matter.

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.

The banning of firearms in America is an illegal act, and degrades the values this country was founded on. They not only play a vital role in many people's lives, but are useful tools, fun to use, and can protect people from harm. Our founding fathers wanted us to have them to protect ourselves from the government, and would be disgusted at our government's current abuse, and overall disregard of the constitution of the United States. A lot of people argue that guns kill people; this is untrue. Guns in the hands of a negligent person have potential to kill people, just as anything else.

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 debatable issue for all times. This essay aims to put forward an argument against gun control. The essay asserts that prevalence of gun control should not be a part of the society. Society should be against gun control because people should be able to protect themselves, the crime rate would decrease, and people have the right to bear arms.

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.

There is a need in this country for gun control laws as well as benefits for the citizenry who own them. With the current state of our society these days, owning a gun has become a necessity for some, if not all, household. I, myself, conform for every household having a gun. Although we have our police force always ready to rescue anyone in distress, every second matters when we are facing face to face with danger. Granted that the authorities are already underway, having something on hand to defend one’s self is the most important thing for the time being. Though I believe that everybody needs to be educated on how to protect our own safety in a close contact combat, it is as important as being knowledgeable in handling and using guns for short-range/long-range threats. Ideally, having knowledge of both is of greater advantage. However, if one can’t have both, owning a gun can always come in handy. But, should we regulate or ban the use of weapons? My standpoint is No. With this in mind, it is necessary to be informed of the responsibilities, advantages and disadvantages of owning a gun. Additionally, we will tackle the National Firearms Act of 1934, which addresses taxing the firearms that only covers two types of handguns. Even more, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the legislation that was passed to regulate interstate and foreign commerce in firearms which includes the importation, prohibited persons and licensing provisions. As well as the Brady Law,

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.

Living a life in America, we all get to have all the rights that included in the Constitution. One of those was the Second Amendment which is the rights to bear arm, the purpose was to protect ourselves from danger but nowadays a lot of people have take advantage of it and use it in the wrong way. I believe our government need to have a strict limit on guns possession.

Ever since the Declaration of Independence has been torn up, the United States has converted to the Constitution as the new sets of rules and laws. Now, the United States refer only to the U.S. Constitution as the base of rules, and nothing can go against it. The Constitution is known as a living piece of document, meaning it can be changed or repealed at any time if needed. Our second amendment, “Rights to Bear Arms” means citizens are allowed to own a firearm. A firearm purpose is to kill another. The reason to manufacture a firearm is to shoot a bullet at a high enough speed to kill a person instantly or wound someone enough to be life threatening. The firearms today cause more harm than good. With firearms, we have numerous accidental shootings, suicides, and murders, and therefore, the United States need to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Gun ownership should be banned in order to reduce crime rates and ensure the protection of our nation’s people. Throughout the United States, gun control has become a controversial issue due to gun advocates strongly believing their 2nd Amendment rights guarantee them legal access to guns. Although gun advocates view gun ownership as self defense, the government and gun control supporters have noticed that legal distribution of guns has been linked to school shootings, homicide, and violent crimes. Furthermore, legal distribution of guns increases the risk of harming innocent people while declining the police’s power to establish safety in society. Overall, in order to prevent the destruction of our country, the people must work together to ban gun ownership and ratify the 2nd Amendment rights clarifying its purpose to the public.