Confessions Of A Liberal Gun Owner By Justin Cronin Summary

A tool used to liberate America from england to assist it to become the hegemon of the 20th century is in the midst of creating war in american society. The right to bear arms has created a heated debate in american politics. Two of such debates is from Patrick Radden Keefe who advocates for the the urgency and the need to regulate gun control and James Q. Wilson who promotes that gun gun control is not the problem and through the use of pathos and ethos these authors champion their truths. I believe that gun control should be regulated and that arms should not be so readily available to the

The controversy also lies on the fact that many people, who have used weapons, have used it for wrong reasons, such as murder or assault. Nugent makes a good point when he mentioned the lady in

He believes private gun ownership should be rare and strictly regulated, just like the gun laws in Europe and Asia. In conclusion, Waldman’s belief is that guns are not used properly

The author’s sentence fluency often connects paragraphs together in a way that allows for the meanings of his words to be fully understood. This is evident in the sentence “[...] Americans should understand the [...] role the N.R.A. plays, not only in thwarting sensible gun safety laws but also in undermining law enforcement by abetting gun traffickers, criminal gun dealers and criminal gun users” that is followed in the next paragraph by the sentence “The N.R.A. [...] often professes to speak for all gun owners [...]. But on some issues, most gun owners clearly reject the party line.” These two

Clubs and Arms: Same Thing, Right? The second amendment is a very heavily controversial subject. More conservative people are pro-second amendment, while more liberal people are anti-second amendment. In Dave Barry’s horatian satirical article, “The Right to bear clubs”, the second amendment comes into light. Barry tries to lighten the subject of guns by using the Ballistic Golf Club as an example for the gun, and by trying to tell America, specifically the anti-gun party, that guns are okay to have.

The most important criterion for the people to own guns is to be responsible for their weapons and their purposes. "Cars are tools that is involved in about as many deaths as guns. If you drink while you drive, you are taken way the right to access legally car. This is about freedom to do as you like until you prove incapable of showing good moral judgment... In this country, you will have freedom but it will be taken away once you prove to be unworthy of the freedom.

“Our Blind Spot about Guns” Rhetorical Analysis Essay American Journalist, Nicholas Kristof, in his essay, “Our Blind Spot about Guns”, addresses that if only guns were regulated and controlled like cars, there would be less fatalities. Kristof’s purpose is to emphasize how much safer cars are now than in the past, while guns do not have the same precautions. He constructs a compelling tone in order to convince the reader that the government should take more control on the safety of guns and who purchases them. Kristof builds credibility by successfully exerting emotional appeals on the audience, citing plausible statistics, and discussing what could possibly be done to prevent gun fatalities. Kristof begins his essay by discussing how automobile

Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Many believe this, but columnist Nicholas Kristof, author of “Our Blind Spot about Guns,” published in 2014 in the New York Times, disagrees. A rhetorical analysis should consist of: logos, pathos, and ethos. Kristof’s use of logos is strong due to the amount of facts and statistics he offers to his audience, but he fails to strongly use pathos and ethos, due to the lack of these elements Kristof’s argument is weakened.

By the end, I had a strong distaste for Mr. LaPierre and what he has contributed to the gun debate. Nevertheless, LaPierre uses a tactic that has had extreme success. LaPierre uses fear to progress his agenda. In this case, LaPierre attempts to convince the public that the government is trying to take their guns and their rights. He threatens that this is a treacherous path leading towards tyranny and a police state.

On the issue of gun control, I had always thought along the lines of opposing or supporting the issue but had never thought that there could be another argument different from these two main ones that could be discussed. It was therefore quite refreshing to look at the issue from Novak’s point of view. The fact that he provided evidence to support his claim that law enforcement has worked before in reducing gun violence cases made his article all the more interesting and believable. He shows that the debate on gun control may just have been pointless all this time as the issue that should be discussed is really not whether people should have guns or not but rather how to enforce the law to ensure that perpetrators of gun violence are

The documentary 30 Days: Gun Nation places a gun control activist from Massachusetts in Leesburg, Ohio to live with a gun enthusiast and his son. The gun control activist, Pia, came in with stereotypical preconceptions about the two. The primary focus of the documentary was Pia’s transition in feelings toward firearms. At times, this transition felt drastic to the point it seemed scripted. During her time, in Leesburg she was exposed to guns on a daily basis, took gun safety classes, and worked in a sporting goods store selling firearms.

Katie Lee British Lit 13 April 2016 Gun Control Research Paper: An Annotated Bibliography Dickerson, John. " Why Newtown Wasn’t Enough." The Slate. The Slate Group, a Graham Holdings Company, 17 Apr. 2013. Web.

The use of and the owning of guns is a very hot and debated topic in society today. For many, this is a life and death debate due to the recent and numerous school shootings. These school shootings have caused an outcry for more gun control, specifically in relation to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Despite these calls, increased gun control is not the answer. Most gun owners’ use their guns responsibly and for good purposes.

was born and raised in Vietnam where guns are not commonly used. It is really rare for a person to own a gun in Vietnam, which was why I was shocked when I moved here because here people allow to carry guns with them. I grew up in culture where guns associate with violence. I just don’t think owning a gun would make you any safer because once you got that gun on your hand, you are more likely to hurt someone. Carrying a gun, give you reason to pull that trigger.

"In 1990, handguns were used to kill approximately 48 people in Japan, 8 in Great Britain, 34 in Switzerland, 52 in Canada, 58 in Israel, 42 in West Germany and 10,728 in the United States”. For many years, America has been regarded as one of the world’s most perilous and ferocious countries in the world. The death rate caused by active gun shooters in the US is extraordinary: “since 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than died in … all the wars of this country 's history”. Hence why public ownership of guns should be abolished in the USA. Can you imagine to what extent the death rate in America has increased by now?