The Ethos In Confessions Of A Liberal Gun Owner By Justin Cronin

"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.

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

This paper discusses and is centered around the on-going debate over gun control, I directly address how each major political party views this subject and what I believe the United States Government should do to be able to best combat this tremendous issue. I use research from multiple sources that contrast each side of the argument and give an overall insight into the world of modernized gun control.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles citizens the right to possess and bear arms; which has continually been an important issue for decades. Gun control is not just one concern, but rather many, within a common category. One may consider gun control a crime issue, while to others it may be a rights issue. Inside each and every issue, there are particular people who want more gun control legislation, and those who want less. Dorothy Samuels does a phenomenal job of portraying her stand on gun control through the use of ethos, logos, and pathos, in her article, “Wrong on Gun Rights”. Samuels utilizes the rhetorical strategies in order to persuade the audience into agreeing with her views.

After investing much effort into understanding the thought process of those who support gun control, a pro-gun-control op-ed was stumbled upon that seemed to embody all of the talking points and emotions of those on the opposing side. There it was summed up in a single picture and a short but succinct headline. It was a gut wrenching black and white photo of six handsome young men in crisp, dark suits and tearful eyes supporting the weight of a cumbersome coffin that no doubt held still precious cargo that will live on only in their hearts. Above it the caption read “This Is Why We Need Gun Control”. The issue of gun control continually elicits impassioned responses from both sides of the argument. The list of reasons gun control proponents supply include: More guns equal more suicide, More guns equal more homicide, Massacres and mass murders are

With the arrival of President Donald Trump, a new mood is beginning to set in the White House that is substantially opposite from the liberal administration of President Obama. Notably, the topic of gun control will soon be brushed aside for the next four years, under Trump’s administration. Even though he had a strong support group from gun owners and leaders of the NRA during his campaign, many are still pushing for “common sense” gun safety laws. Advocate for gun control and author of Fight for common sense gun-safety policies far from over, Mark Kelly, touches on personal experiences that motivated him to speak about change in gun ownership. In contrast, author of Gun control negates Constitutional right to property, Jonathan Bain, gives

In re-evaluating my positions on guns and gun control, I think it is imperative that I first start with where my opinion is rooted. Oftentimes, I feel as though my opinion on guns is most polarized in times of crisis, be it after the Aurora Massacre, Newtown Shooting, or Chardon Shooting which hit close to home. I feel compelled to act and defend those who could not defend themselves. This thought rings especially true when the media accentuates the victims with “the poor innocent children” narrative contrasted by “the nasty cold-blooded assassin.” While I sympathize with all who have undergone tragedy, especially the families of such horrible massacres, the gun lobby and its supporters raise a valid argument when they argue that “guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” Undoubtedly, gun opponents could counter by noting that a culture devoid of guns would remove the weapon from killers’ hands – and this point is highlighted with the example of the stabbing in China that occurred on the same day as the Newtown tragedy, where the victims were only injured, not killed. However, the point to be taken from this debate is that in order to have a fair debate, emotion and feelings must be removed. Only in our most objective states can we attribute the reason that such a serious issue deserves. Historically, I believe that this is a problem we have faced, as the

The author is to show democrats and liberals the opposite side and why conservatives do not want a ban on guns or even gun control . He is trying to see the gun debate argument on both sides. Although they are pro guns they also are pro gun control. The purpose of this article is to educate and try to reason with those who do not see the other side of the gun debate article. This article shows the common ground that both liberals and conservatives may agree on. Rural America wants a voice and wants to be understood. Many liberals often label guns as bad and believe that should be banned. Leonard analyzes both points of view and shows both sides. “But again, where you might blame the guns, they don’t. They blame the shooters.” (Rob Leonard).

This discourse is needed because Weinstein is speaking from a personal standpoint that gun owners can relate to. He highlights the inner turmoil many gun owners must face when thinking about owning a gun and whether or not they can properly use it. He also goes into detail when he explains how people who own guns have caused more

Violence. Murder. Sadness. These words describe a situation that has been occurring in the United State more frequently, a mass shooting. The thought of something so horrible happening to someone close or even oneself is hard to imagine. However, knowing that that possibility of a shooting happening is raising more concern on gun laws. The debate is one that is difficult to answer; there are those who, almost literally, love their guns more than their children and there are those who love their children more than guns. Both sides make valid arguments and can be quite convincing as well, although, to provide a unanimous solution we must analyze both perspectives. The question is then brought to attention; what are the perspectives on the gun

Since America’s birth, guns have played a large part in it’s society. Citizens of the United States have used firearms to protect the land they love, and their families. They even use them for engaging activities such as hunting and sport. Though firearms may seem to have a commonplace in society, weighing the rights and liberties of citizens against the safety and welfare of the public has always been a delicate process. In the United States, gun control is a of heated issue that has two sides. Both strongly believe in what they convey to others. Those in favor of the freedom to use and keep guns, rely on the fact that the authorization for these rights are in The Constitution. In today’s society, an environment of ever growing violence and crime, gun advocates feel more justified.

This article begins with pathos in the form of argument by humor in which Pate sarcastically summarizes the argument of those who advocate gun control at gun shows saying gun shows “have suddenly become an irresistible magnet for foreign terrorists” (par. 1). He also incorporates a large amount of pathos through his word choice for the beginning paragraphs of the article. Pate refers to the argument being made by gun control advocates as “hogwash being sold to the American people in a slick ad campaign” (par. 2). By using the words “hogwash” and “slick ad campaign”, Pate is able to turn the reader against gun control advocacy because he makes it seem as if gun control advocates are trying to sell the American public on an idea that is worthless. Pate also personally attacks Andrew McKelvey who is funding this ad campaign by saying McKelvey is “in a personal crusade to restrict Second Amendment rights” (par. 3). Despite the fact that this is an ad hominem fallacy, this attack instantly turns Pate’s audience against Andrew McKelvey and any issue that he may support because Americans

In 1924, when presidential candidate Robert La Follete was asked if he supported or opposed gun control, he replied: “Our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control, but to decide who can own which guns under what conditions” (GALE). The question of gun control has been one America has struggled with for ages. Currently one of the hottest debate topics, access to firearms is an issue that people have formed thousands of different opinions on. As stated by La Follete, it is not just an issue of yes or no- it is a more complicated topic with circumstances that vary depending on location, personal beliefs, and many other factors.

Carlson’s book zeroes in on the limitations of carrying guns, while distinguishing between criminals and gun carriers. Regardless if you are pulled over for speeding, or gunned down for committing an armed robbery, you pick and choose your battles. The answer to if you are innocent or not innocent is embedded in law, but the answer to whether or not your actions are morally acceptable, remains subjective. Carlson effectively outlines the real reasons individuals choose to carry a gun. It is noteworthy that she does not include the opinions of police officers in her text. Rather, she focuses on the individuals who are targeted. She open fires at her readers, with facts which are totally different than what the media tends to show.

Gun control is a major part of American Politics. One problem in the gun control discussion is if the people should have the right to “Conceal-and-carry” weapons with them all the time.The Founding Fathers saw owning a gun  as a means to protect against tyrannical rule. America’s foundation was built with firearms. Ever since America’s freedom from Britain, American’s have been enthralled with firearms. A part of our Constitution is devoted directly to our gun rights, the Second Amendment.