Nan Desuka's Article 'Why Handguns Must Be Outlawed'

Paper will discuss that controversial topic of concealed handguns. Being pro concealed weapons, I feel they can prevent crimes from happening and help people to defend themselves in dangerous situations. The contents of this paper will review the arguments for and against concealed handgun and will deliver a policy regarding the public health topic of concealed carry laws. Concealed handgun should be allowed for the main reason that they help to prevent crimes from occurring. Not only is carrying a handgun a right given to US citizens via the constitution (National archives, n.d.), but it's been shown that states with strict or bands on concealed weapons have higher gun involved murder rates (Gius, 2013).

Concealed guns are allowing the public to overcome the dangers in the world, but they are also a danger in many ways. These dangers have lead to many horrific accidents in our present time. These incidents are also causing more people around the world to join in on these events. Concealed guns should be banned because by permitting handguns, it can end up causing more crimes, dangerous people are more likely to carry a gun and endanger the public, and guns can make the public paranoid.

Rhetorical Analysis of John Lott’s “More Guns Less Crime” John Lott’s book, More Guns Less Crime explains how guns don’t increase crime however, guns do decrease crime rates in the United States. Chapter 2 titled, How to Test the Effects of Gun Control which contributes to one of Lott’s main focus in this book. Lott reviewed and conducted many surveys to determine whether gun control will increase or decrease the death rate. The question that arose and drew much attention to surveyors was, “Will these laws improve or degrade the quality of life when it comes to violent crime?”

All of the items addressed in this essay come to show that not very many people use guns for self defense, and that the gun purchasing process needs to be harder for customers to acquire. There are multiple ways that the world can be a better place, and the first is to create a sense of safety, by making guns harder to get. If this essay still can’t get you on its side, keep in mind that a single bullet can end a close family member’s

In “Forget Gun Control. America Needs Fallacy Control.”, Michelle Malkin, the author, mainly talks against outspoken celebrities on the argument of gun control. In response to such celebrities as Jimmy Kimmel and Billy Baldwin, Malkin points out the unfactual statements they claim. She believes feelings, outbursts, and emotional responses by these celebrities should not be taken over critical thinking. Michelle Malkin effectively goes against these emotional outbursts by these many Hollywood celebrities.

One Gun + One Bullet = Death among Millions Violence in the world can be described as a violent trend that will continue to become more violent with each new passing generation. The argument is that guns are the reason for violence in today’s society and it begins with just the simple purchase of one gun. It begins with hurtful words that turn to taking a shot at the enemies that appear right in front of the daily population. Gun violence is becoming more and more prevalent today. The article titled “New Gun Laws Won’t Save Lives” by Jim Lucas really grabs the readers attention making them want to read it.

Ryan Clark Adeline Mitchell English 125 22 July 2015 An Annotated Bibliography Wright, Stephen E. "Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives." Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins.

This is also shown in his title, that contain what many believe to be an oxymoron, a liberal and gun owner. Cronin wanted to attract the reader's logic by not simply telling, but describing the events that lead to gun ownership. Cronin’s thesis was well-written and concise on what he addressed. He again appealed to the reader’s logic by explaining the need of reform on the accessibility of firearms, but by not explicitly offering his solution, he left room for interpretation. Recent studies show that most citizens, of all political parties, see the need for reform regarding gun safety.

Supporters of gun control dismiss the saying “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” because they are misinformed about the number of defensive gun uses (DGU) which far outnumbers the

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.

She says that family arguments can end in someone being killed if their was a gun, but she doesn't understand that the same thing would happen if their was a knife too. She never looks at more than one side and doesn't go over any reasons why their would be guns and argue against those views. Ivins even tries to bring up England saying that England is doing better with gun control laws; she doesn't bring up any facts and she has no logical explanation or reasoning why England is doing

In today’s society, one of the most alienating issues in American politics is gun control. More specifically, the issue is whether or not guns should be banned in the United States. Some people would say that guns should be banned because it would reduce crime as a whole and keep citizens safer. These people, enthusiasts of stricter gun laws, fear being safe in their country where there are so many people who have access to guns. Opponents of this argument, however, also fear losing safety.

Moorhouse, John C, and Brent Wanner. “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?” Ebscohost, 1 Jan. 2006, web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=db378b8b-d9e7-4ee7-b26c-460bc1177bd4%40sessionmgr4008. Moorhouse and Wanner, in their article “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control”, studied whether or not gun control reduced gun violence in individual states. The overarching theme throughout the individual states is that gun control doesn’t reduce gun violence and is very ineffective.

Instead of banning or limiting guns, the evidence will show that removing the current restrictions and targeting individuals instead of guns will be a more effective process. The topic of gun control has two polarized opinions. One such opinion targets the individuals responsible for the crime, instead of just the weapons. John Moorhouse and Brent Wanner tackle the issue of gun control in their article “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control”, which was published in 2006 in the twenty-sixth volume of the Cato Journal. These researchers looked at the effects gun control laws had on violent crime and gun violence in the individual states.

Pistols aren’t the only problem but automatic weapons are legal in only a few places and the United States is one of them. It is illegal to hunt with automatic weapons, they are only used for home defense and recreation. Is it worth keeping automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons for home defense and recreation when tens of thousands of people die each year from gun violence? Banning pistols could have the same effect as it did in Australia and reduce the crime rates and