Persuasive Articles on Gun Control Essays

Ivins begins her article by saying she is not “anti-gun, I’m pro-knife,” but partially conflicts her statement. While her belief of pro-knife remains true, Ivins refutes her statement about not being anti-gun. Ivins persistently villainizes the use of guns by using extreme examples of gun misuse, asking the question “How do they know it was the dearest wish of Thomas Jefferson's heart that teen-age drug dealers should cruise the cities of this nation perforating their fellow citizens with assault rifles?” She continuously lacks the ability to provide reasonable evidence in this article and only strives to engender rage upon the pro-gun

Gun violence has been a massive issue through the modern age of humanity and has created a sense of division regarding the solution to this epidemic. In Adam Gopnik’s essay “Shootings”, Gopnik addresses the issue of gun violence and demands a change in American government policy to prevent the tragic killings of innocent lives. Gopnik harnesses the tool of emotion and passion to drive his essay. In Charles Cooke’s essay “Gun Control Dishonesty”, Cooke takes the polar opposite of Gopnik’s approach by utilizing factual evidence to prove the futility of gun control.

On June 17, 2016, an editor from the St. Louis Post Dispatch published an article, “Now is the time for common-sense gun control,” that briefly talks about how gun lobbyists are striking fear on the citizens and how gun control advocates need to keep pushing harder. The writer also reviews the Second Amendment and how gun culture affects today’s society.

She brought forward a variety of facts and aspects that allow a wide range of readers to understand and be affected by her writing. Samuels made sure that she was thorough in her writing in order to provide the best and most persuasive article on gun right that she could. She did this by taking advantage of the three main rhetorical strategies that have been proven to work with many audiences, ethos, logos, and pathos. She also got her viewpoint across in a very polite and professional manner without being to direct towards the audience, which makes them slowly begin to agree with her more and more as the article

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

EVERITT, LADD and ERICH PRATT. "Does the U.S. Need Tougher Gun-Control Laws?." Junior Scholastic, vol. 119, no. 9, 20 Feb. 2017, p. 22.EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,custuid&custid=s8455861&db=mih&AN=121278335&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

The continuing Mass Shootings in the United States has caused the gun control debate to intensify. While anti-gun control advocates say the Second Amendment guarantees each individual the right to bear arms, the pro-gun control group reads the Second Amendment as a collective right to bear arms; meaning organized militia are the only ones with that right. This essay will analyse the effectiveness of several different articles which present arguments for and against gun control.

In her essay, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns”, Molly Ivins discusses the highly debated topic of gun control. She argues that guns are an unnecessary evil to all of humanity and that permitting them to inexperienced and unregulated citizens only spoils the national security of the United States of America. Ivins quotes the Second Amendment as saying that guns were primarily intended to be used by a “well-regulated militia”. Thus, she believes that anyone who wants to own a gun should be subject to extensive training: “That is the least, the very least, that should be required of those who are permitted to have a gun” (385). Ivins goes on to say that guns are extremely dangerous and they should be banned, or at the very least strictly regulated (384-386). While Ivins reasonably discusses the issue of gun control in her op-ed, she does not adequately support her claims with substantial evidence or research about the negative impacts that guns have had on our society. She also seems unwilling to be open-minded about the opinions of the opposing side, calling them “gun-nuts” with a power hang-up (386). In conclusion, Ivins’ essay is not effective in urging readers who are pro-gun to change their views and she does not help reinforce the beliefs of people who oppose firearms.

October 1, 2017 marked the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. With almost 500 injured and 58 killed, not only did Las Vegas feel the tragedy of a personal loss, but the incident had rippling effects that shook all of America (Flaherty). With the fresh wounds of the recent Las Vegas shooting, politician's initial reaction is to implement more strict gun restrictions and "lay down the law" to prevent a similar event from happening again. Due to the drastic laws being carried out, the topic of gun control is a current issue in society. Is the solution to implement more firm restrictions on gun ownership or can the government allow the people to be their own advocates? While the opposing views of pro-gun restrictions argue that is up to the discretion of the government, they are often narrow-minded resolutions with no hope to finding a real solution. This particular shooter obtained his guns legally and passed all background checks, going unnoticed until his plan unfolded. Establishing more strict firearm restrictions would not have stopped the Las Vegas shooting from occurring. The number of gun restrictions can not increase, the government needs to either fix the existing laws or do away with gun restrictions entirely. Gun restrictions are not the solution because guns are not doing the killing--people are, the laws only attack the law-abiding citizens, and the gun restrictions add another infringed upon right that the government controls. While voting against additional gun rules will not completely eliminate the controversy behind this topic, voting against these laws will be a milestone to regaining the rights we have already been promised.

According to a World Health Organization study done in 2010, the Unites States of America has the fourth highest firearm homicide rate in the world after Afghanistan, Iraq and the Congo. More recently, a study done in 2013 by the Center for Disease Control found out that there were a total of 33,169 deaths with the use of firearms and more than half were a result of suicide. These statistics have sparked an extensive amount of modern debates on whether we as an American democracy need to amend the second amendment and regulate the purchase of as well as the right to individually bear arms. Two people who analyze this debate very differently but effectively are Zack Beauchamp who wrote “Rethinking the Right to Bear Arm”, and Nelson Lund who

Recently, mass shooting is happening everywhere across the country once in a while, notably in Las Vegas and Texas. And even on our campus, a Soka alumni was arrested for threatening a “killing spree” last Friday. The debate about the gun control has been a hot issue throughout the history of the United States, yet during the interview after the mass shooting in Texas, President Trump responded "we could go into the gun control policy], but it's a little bit too soon.", and called the shooter a "very deranged individual" with "a lot of problems over a long period of time" rather than calling him a terrorist. The right to bear arms is one of the unique features in the American society. Only in the United States, Guatemala, and Mexico clearly states the right to bear arms in their constitution. The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights states that the Second Amendment which is the right to bear arms which is allowing us to have weapons in our hands; many individuals are becomingly increasingly unsure of where the line is drawn on being able to have a gun and what prevents people from using them for harm. Some people have argued that even though the Second Amendment does protect our individual rights to have the option to own arms, that it should give the government authority to ban high-crime communities from using handguns. Gun violence embraces every town in the United States.

Imagine a woman being stalked by a predator outside of her home. Over a few days, she tells the police and files a report, but the problem persists. She fears for her life and tries to find a way to protect herself and her loved one. As a last resort, she travels to her local gun store because she needs to buy a gun for her safety. Unfortunately, the cashier explains that she’ll need to wait for her gun because there is a waiting period to receive her firearm. She begs and pleads and tells the cashier her situation and all the things she has tried, but the man can’t break the law for her. Reluctantly, she gives in and heads back to her unsafe home, only to be later assaulted and killed before her weapon could get to her in time. This type of situation happens unfortunately to some people, and it is because gun control laws have implemented waiting periods to receive your weapon. But that however, is just one of the many gun control laws that should be abolished in order to take a step forward towards a better society.

Breaking news, an “assault weapon” walked in a school and wreaked havoc creating the ninth school shooting we’ve had this year! You may be thinking, what, a gun with a mind of its own? Well, that is exactly the type of thinking the news and gun-control activists want you to have. I have never met a firearm who wants or even can shoot someone, have you? That leads us to think about who the real problem is with gun-control, the firearm, or the human? If these activists were to become successful, we would be able to see the effects. The consequences of people not being able to own guns would have tremendous effects on safety, such as self-defense, which is why laws should focus on placing more restrictions on who can get guns, strengthening the filtering system, and placing harder penalties for those who use guns wrongfully or who do not have the right paperwork.

Persuading an audience can be done in several different fashions, one of which is Hugh Rank's Model of Persuasion. Rank's model states that two major strategies are used to achieve the particular goal of persuasion. These strategies are nicely set into two main schemas; the first method is to exaggerate an aspect of something, known as "intensify." While the second is to discredit it, which is referred to as "downplay." Al Franken, Jeffrey Snyder, Harlan Ellison, and George Will, have all written persuasive articles about gun control.