The Old Gun Analysis

Ivins’ Argument For Knives Today’s political battlefield in America sees many controversial topics debated upon. Out of all the political topics currently sweeping through the United States, few have had a louder voice and more media attention than the debate on gun control. Some people argue that guns are too dangerous to have in society and should be banned while others claim it is their constitutional right to bear arms. In the short passage Get a knife, Get a dog, but Get Rid of Guns author Molly Ivins argues for the banning of guns in the United States.

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

We might find this issue to be small, but think about the millions of people who have their family killed by gun violence. The author want us to know by including descriptions on the setting of places such as the freeway “People get killed on freeways all the time” (159) The many moments that involve a gun actually have two meanings in the book. On one hand it signifies violence and destruction, in the story we see that Lauren’s journey up north witnesses countless acts with many guns: “One group chasing the other, both firing their guns as though they and their enemies were the only people in the world”(223). This not only shows us the brutal nature of people but also how people will use the guns to get what they want, knowing that it might kill someone.

After reading "Bang for the Buck", it is evident that the guns have had a special place in history. The major problem is that the political class got it all wrong when it decided to allow citizens to own guns and made it became more of a love affair. Apparently, people had held different types of rifles during the militia wars that took place a long time ago in the United States history. One most critical recognizance of the history of the guns can be seen by looking at Britain's Militia Acts that took place in 1661 and 1662. The amendment gave an opportunity for the American citizens for rival groups to fire salvos at each other, and it largely played a part in the enhancement of gun violence that is still in play in the country.

Wuertenberg uses examples of slave periods to illustrate how gun ownership equaled power and suggest how white men wanted to ensure gun ownership exclusively for them. In conclusion, Wuertenberg argues that guns are a symbol of power that through history have become more efficient when it comes to “Making America Great Again”. The rhetorical strategies used by Nathan Wuertenberg are effective, because they help support his argument and explain how white man depend on guns to believe their powerful and have authority over

Even though gun violence has always plagued humanity, authorities still fail to remove the dangerous equipment at hand. Of course, in the article “The solution to gun violence is clear” published in December 12, 2012, issue of The Washington post, opinionated writer Fareed Zakaria makes his claim on why guns should be banned in the United States. Although this is an interesting subject Zakaria is not very authoritative on his claim. He argues that there are too many guns, too easy to obtain, and the country’s “permissive laws” are making it worst for Americans. Zakaria writes about how much of a better difference the lack of access to guns, have in other countries to make his point.

Gun Control: an Argument Dating Back to Before 1776 The debate of gun control dates back 100s of years,and many people want to ban guns so that no one can have them. That statement is complete ignorance to what really goes on. The debate has many different viewpoints with some being as radical as banning guns to create a false sense of Utopia. The recent rise of school shootings has set off a spark of gun control debates that make little sense.

Readers are given the opportunity to put this into perspective and ultimately associate guns with murder in the home, making Ivins argument more persuasive. “Did the gun kill someone? No. But if there had been no gun, no one would have died” (Ivins). Phrasing like this, undoubtedly sparks some form of emotion for readers, reflecting the author's attempt to influence their judgment on the existence of guns in American

Guns are extremely powerful weapons. They can cause destruction, harm or even death. They can be used to defend and protect or to threaten and kill. Any way you look at it, guns are powerful tools, not only physically but socially.

Living Among Guns Lately, there has been many debates going on in the news about firearms and necessary action that should be taken against these deadly weapons. These debates have led many American people to start questioning the laws surrounding gun control and the interpretation of the second amendment that allows the right to bear arms. Even though many Americans don 't have the proper knowledge concerning firearm laws, gun control is a subject that many wish not to discuss, but with the recent incidents that have occurred; this is one issue that should no longer be ignored. In his book Living with Guns, author Craig R. Whitney challenges the way a person thinks about firearms and gun control and speaks about gun violence and how it 's

“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

For others, a view that has arose later, guns are the “perpetuation of illicit social hierarchies, the elevation of force over reason,” and a promoter of collectivity and remover of individuality. This latter view of guns is a direct application of the conflict theory. For those who hold this view, and likely support the passage of gun control laws, guns are representative of social inequality that is abundant in modern society, that the usage of guns is a means of violently coercing those of lower classes to remain in their class. The view of guns as a symbol of protection is also an application of the conflict theory.

Some authors feel a sense of pride in having guns a part of our country. “Without guns we would not be the free country we are today.” (Juliano 21). Not only do citizens

Gun control has been a big factor in today’s society, now days it is often to see people getting their lives taken from them due to guns. Having researched one side of the issue, that gun violence had increased over the last year. Having researched the other side of the issue, more gun owners are feeling their rights are being taken little by little. There is no question this is a complicated issue that will require a complicated answer.

Over the course of history humans always been in war and somehow found a way to kill one another. Weapons have become more and more deadly to the point where we have weapons that can kill less than a second. These weapons are called guns and they have been one of the most controversial subjects in history. Many people think their should be a ban on guns and their are those that think otherwise. Molly Ivins, the woman who wrote “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns” supports knifes over guns and says that guns only kill but, her essay is put together poorly because of constant use of verbal fallacies such as hasty generalization, oversimplification, and even either-or fallacy.