'Our Blind Spot About Guns' By Nicholas Kristof

The two articles in this module were very interesting to read. Although the two presented many worthy arguments, Nicholas Kristof’s article “Our Blind Spot about Guns" seemed more persuasive. I believe this way because Kristof used a variety of facts to support his arguments, rather than Andrew Leonard who seemed to habitually use anecdotal evidence. The statistic argument regarding how many Americans would be dying annually because of vehicle accidents if it wasn’t because of regulations, caught my attention. The majority of his evidence was credible since he used statistical evidence and facts that occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I also liked how he stated the history of automobile regulation as background information. The article

Nicholas Kristof’s article, “Our Blind Spot About Guns,” argues that guns should be regulated just like cars are. In which he focuses that the problem is that there are many handguns with no regulations which it makes individuals unsafe. And overall, I agree with Kristof’s argument because guns should go through the same regulations we go for our cars. Also, because guns aren’t like cars that are visible, and making guns safer “smart guns.”

One major argument for this is that potential villains see places that ban concealed weapons as an easy target. In an article titled Groundswell for Guns at July’s GOP Convention by Doug Stanglin it talks about how twenty-five thousand people have signed a petition to allow firearms inside the Republican National Convention. The need for petition comes from the fact that the Quicken Loans arena is a gun free zone. The petition which is quoted in the article says that “Without the right to protect themselves those at the Quicken Loans Arena will be sitting ducks utterly helpless against evil-doers, criminals, or others who wish to threaten the American way of life” This quote brings to light some of the dangerous possibilities areas suscep

How can one write a compelling argument without ethos, pathos, and logos? That is right you can not! Nathan Wuertenberg, an author for The Washington Post, argues in the article “ Gun Rights are About Keeping White Men on Top” that gun laws had always been made to benefit white men instead of everyone. Wuertenberg uses multiple examples from the Civil Rights Movement, slavery, and school shootings to argue that in all those different situations gun laws have been put in place to benefit white men. Wuertenberg concludes that we can not blame anyone for what this country has turned to because we are the ones that are letting this happen.

In the article “Some Inconvenient Gun Facts for Liberals,” by Nicholas Kristof, Kristof’s main point is to bring awareness and inform individuals about the status of gun control in his/her country. Kristof punctuates that the government is passing laws concerning gun control and regulation, but ultimately he provides evidence that those laws have no benefit overall to the people. Kristof converses that some groups formed due to gun control, but they too do not relate to guns, such as the nonprofit group named Cure Violence. He addresses that the government is ignorant to these problems, and he emphasizes how they needs to be resolved. This article portrays Kristof’s call to action because he is recognizing that the people need to help bring

Gun safety is a topic that has been more prevalent as time goes on. Some people believe that guns should be illegalized, while others believe we should add more laws concerning gun safety. The article with the information this essay uses is “Some Inconvenient Gun Facts for Liberals” By Nicholas Kristoff.

The topic of gun control has long been an issue that has divided our countries political alignments. Peggy Noonan's take on the whole issue of whether assault weapons should be illegal is more convincing than the other two columnists because she delves deeper into the cause of the events, her diction is more formal, and the structure of her article made a stronger case for the argument.

In my opinion, this discussion was probably one of the most thought provoking discussion we have had thus far in this course for several reasons. I have very strong views on gun rights and control prior to the dialogue. Therefore, I spent more time listening to other people opinions and perspective.

For many years, people have been pushing the American government to implement new laws that deal with gun control. Supporters of the argument claim that increased gun control will drastically reduce the crime rate in America. Nevertheless, a majority of gun control arguments are formed from strict control of data and emotional appeal. The mainstream media picks up these stories and broadcasts them to viewers without providing any context to them. While gun control activists assert that gun control is necessary, the American government should not ban guns because of the following reasons: potential vulnerability of innocent people being shot at by criminals and the inability for people to defend themselves against their own government.

2014 essay titled “Our Blind Spot About Guns” makes an astute comparison of car regulation to

As it is well known gun violence is a major problem in today’s society, places like Chicago and New York City have a serious epidemic on their hands. It is not uncommon to hear about an incident where a gun was involved in these big cities on a day to day basis, but it’s not just the big cities, these type of things are happening nationwide. There has been an argument for many decades whether the cause of such violence is due to the lack of gun control laws or the restrictions put on firearms. Both sides of the isle will argue, the more liberal individual will tell you there is not enough while the conservative individual will tell you the laws put in place are too strict.

High regulation of guns has a significant impact on violence in our country. According to Our Blind Spot about Guns, Nicholas Kristof states that by banning guns it would not make the problem of violence any better. By

The high rates of gun violence and accidents in the United States have long aroused public concern, in view of the strong correlation between gun prevalence, many people believe that the United States must adopt stricter gun control measures to reduce the huge number of firearms across the nation. These people are known as gun control proponents, or advocates. However, many other people do not think so. In their eyes, the serious firearm problems do not result from gun prevalence, and many people would say it is not gun’s problem, people are pushing our

"First, there's the shooting." On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School and took 26 lives, most of them belonging to children. Sadly, too many situations similar to this have occurred prior to and since. In January 2013, Stephen King published an extended essay called Guns exploring the issue of gun violence in the United States.

A shooting here; a shooting there; an every day occurrence heard in the newspapers and on the news channels on television. New media are reporting a shooting somewhere. Whether the shootings are accidental or intentional; they are happening across the United States. Nevertheless, in today’s society, gun violence is sparking debate and controversy on how to control gun violence. Throughout the country, thousands of laws and regulations have been created to aid in the control of guns. Through much study, the gun laws and regulations in place have very little effect on the number of gun related injuries and deaths. More needs to be done to establish an effective way to control gun violence.