Summary Of Cry, By Thomas Cooke

Mass shootings are increasing in the United States, and gun control advocates are seizing the opportunity to push anti-gun legislation to deter gun violence in America. Guns and the Second Amendment have come to the forefront of political rhetoric, leading to conflicting views between lawmakers on the future of gun legislation. Republican lawmakers are encouraging law abiding citizens to acquire firearms and to defend themselves against acts of violence by criminals. On the contrary, Democratic lawmakers believe the only way to slow gun violence in the United States is to remove guns from society. While certain politicians believe strict gun laws would protect the American people, the proposed policies would make our nation more vulnerable

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.

People who appreciate activities like shooting competitions and hunting, use firearms responsibly. This use contrasts with other uses, which often result in consequences that can be both intended and unintended. With past and present mass shootings, and acts of bloodshed perpetrated with the usage of weapons; has triggered a focus on gun control that once again has been brought into the spotlight. The purpose of the ongoing gun argument addresses the crimes that are committed with guns. This issue of gun control separated people into two groups: those who believe that carrying guns might prevent some crimes and fatalities, and those who don’t. There are individuals who believe absolutely the reverse: that more crime and deaths

Cooke’s article offer honest advice on gun control. Gun control refers to laws or policies of the use or possession on any firearm. In this article, Cooke observes much shocking mass shooting that took place which could’ve been avoiding with stricter gun control laws. The author explains why the gun control law is useless because they do not prevent the act of violence. This article also talks about America not regulating gun control like we should. Cooke argues that the gun control debate is one the most dishonest topic that we have in American politics. He provide a list of massacres perpetrated between 1999 and 2012.

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.

Cooke’s essay overflows with logic and reason. He uses facts to debunk the fallacies of gun control while Gopnik chooses the power of emotion to fuel his essay. However, both authors use facts to prove their point.Cooke dowses his essay with facts even to the extent that a list of incidents disproving gun control efforts as an absurd solution to mass shootings covers a page and a half of his piece. His usage of strong facts and precise statistics allows his essay to expose errors in the logic of gun control laws. These attributes can be found at the end of his list where he states, “Aaron Alexis killed 12 people at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. Alexis had patronized a licensed dealer in Virginia and bought a Remington 870 shotgun that is so common that it is even legal in England” (Cooke 3). Cooke continues on to reveal that Alexis had passed a background check and had walked into a locked-down a “gun-free” military base in a city which carrying firearms is prohibited. Cooke uses facts to like these to show the blatant disobedience of gun safety laws and regardless of potential consequence. Adam Gopnik sings a very different tune than that of Cooke’s in Gopnik’s incoherent passion driven rant. Facts seem like a needle in a haystack full of overflowing emotion in Gopnik’s rage. He states that, “Nations with tight gun laws have, on the whole, less gun violence; countries with essentially no gun laws have a lot of gun violence” (Gopnik 696). What a well written piece of evidence this is.~ His style of simply writing words and treating them as absolute fact is childish and shows the immaturity of Gopnik’s writing. His foolish remarks continue to pile

The article “Treasure the Second Amendment, but Ban Assault Rifles” discovered on Opposing Viewpoints was originally published at NewsMax.com, and authored by Judith Miller. The title suggests a forthcoming article in which the current interpretation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is expressly valid, but will present an argument for the banning of Assault Rifles. However, this article provides no evidence or statistics to show how an assault weapon ban might have success, but instead, argues it's position by bemoaning apathetic past and current presidents, detailing several horrific tragedies seemingly attributed to the expiration of the previous ban, and singling out a specific assault weapon, but fails establish a legitimate argument against Assault Rifles.

The thought of guns and the ability to commit mass murder is a chilling one. According to the The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, “an average of more than 100,000 people are shot every year in the United States” (Just the Facts: Gun Violence in America). Gun violence in America has reached epidemic proportions, surpassing rates of gun-related violence in other developed, high-income nations by 25 percent (Preidt). There is an urgent need for tighter gun laws in America. (5) In order to put an end to the growing trend of gun violence, the United States needs stricter legislation regarding the purchase and ownership of firearms. Although most gun advocates believe that stricter gun laws would not prevent mass shootings, stricter gun

While Americans were contemplating gun control proposals in the wake of mass shootings at a Colorado School, another gunman massacred 50 people in a club in Orlando. This incident brought heated political exchanges between President Obama and Trump, the Republican presidential candidate. It is estimated that in 2015 alone, there were more than 351 mass shootings in the United States. This is a worrying trend that should be reversed as soon as possible. Surprisingly, the trend has divided Americans into two groups. On one extreme end, there are those Americans who believe that the government should enforce gun control. On the other end, some Americans insist that stricter gun controls will not help in the fight against killings. In this light, this paper will try to provide a detailed analysis of the gun control debate while highlighting the various points made by the proponents and opponents of the gun control. The essay posits that gun control is counterproductive.

Last year, then-Republican candidate Carly Fiorina claimed that states with strict gun laws had “the highest gun crime rate in the nation” (Robertson, 2015). The following month, President Barack Obama stated that states with stricter gun laws “tend to have the fewest gun deaths” (Robertson, 2015). The West might have been won with a Smith & Wesson, but in our modern society guns are the subject of much debate. While some groups push for fewer guns and more gun control, others insist that increased gun control leads to increased crime. Both sides cite statistics in support of their views, yet experts who have reviewed the same data have concluded that the data is inconclusive. The contenders on both sides don’t ever address the other factors that contribute to crime, such as poverty, racial tensions, a strained and overworked police force, and the deterioration of family social structure. As a nation, we need to move beyond the never-ending debate over gun control. We need to work out a compromise that will help law enforcement put a stop to these terrible mass shootings while preserving Second Amendment rights.

Cooke bases his piece primarily on facts. His logic forces the reader to think more seriously about the issue of gun control and how it would not prevent terrible massacres from happening. Cooke writes of universal background checks: “it is certainly not possible to claim that they would prevent or even diminish the number of mass shootings” (Cooke 6). Gopnik includes a great deal of logic in his article, but, unlike Cooke, he does not rely solely on logic to reach his readers. Gopnik argues that gun control can reduce the number of fatal shootings. He compares America’s current gun control to that of other countries, making it clear to the reader that gun violence correlates directly to the amount of guns available. After offering several

People kill people.” Many republicans, who are against gun regulations, argue that guns don’t kill people and that people kill people in an attempt to prove that regulating guns doesn’t change the aggressive nature of some individuals. Kristof refutes this claim by, again, comparing guns to cars and by explaining that although sometimes drivers are responsible for crashes, this does not mean that we should inhibit regulations that will help reduce the numbers of deaths that occur due to car accidents. The authors condescending tone and comparisons to car regulation not only help him refute many of the claims that republicans make against gun control, but they also help shows the reader that republicans are hypocritical when it comes to regulations and that they, in fact, were supportive of certain types of regulation which ended up saving millions of people. Because his article is published in the Opinion Pages of the New York Times, a sector of the New York Times that is loaded with opinionated articles written by the public, Kristof is able to use informal language, a condescending tone, and metaphors throughout his work in order to successfully convey his message and persuade his readers.

Gail makes the point that while guns in themselves are a complete danger, she signifies their protection and importance. She states, “letting a terrorist buy a gun or temporarily depriving a person who is not a terrorist of the right to acquire weaponry,” she makes the argument that it is too facile to acquire a gun. I think, instead of creating more or new laws on guns there should be an increase of enforcement on the laws that we already have, they are ignored and undermined. Nicholas Kristof makes the argument that guns are a menace and should be banned entirely due to the mass amount of deaths that have occurred. In the column, “On Guns, We’re Not Even Trying”, Kristof makes the fact, “but just in the last four years, more people have died in the United States from guns than Americans have died in the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq combined.” He does this to state that the death because of shooting is extreme and that there is a way to prevent

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.

As the book has progressed it has become exponentially less confusing. Will Weaver, the author, has given more information about the deep hatred that Billy's and King's families have for each other. Weaver has also mentioned why they are all going on a trip together. The book is now a lot less confusing and I know the background of the story, so I am happy with how the book is turning out to be.