Free The Gun Control Essay Sample
Frank Lautenberg a senator against arms in the USA argues against the state imposing general Gun laws as applied across various states in the country. He makes his case sensible through citing how allowing more guns to be in the arms of civilians has led to more deaths than those in actual war scenarios in Iraq and Afghanistan. Contrary to the expectations, within 10 years, 100000 Americans have died from gun related violence as opposed to the 6000 in war zones. This is contrast of the highest order and it feels like the war should actually be in the USA confines. Lautenberg strengthens his argument through a sarcastic fact about guns being almost in equal amounts as the population number.
His target audience is the techno savvy population of America who can access the websites and internet. Frank argument is valid because he highlights the impossibility of harmonizing gun laws to apply across cities and states. The strength is in citing states like Texas and Arizona who have embraced low standards of gun regulation being at the forefront of the debates. When we objectively analyze the scenario, it is obvious that the western states are sparsely populated and people are isolated thus making it sensible to have a gun in every home. We cannot allow the same into densely populated states because it loses the essence and has some citizens devising ways to use the guns. Therefore, the government should not allow for gun laws to be pushed through and replace the power of the individual states in licensing and controlling arms. The simple reason is that, states understand their unique needs and infrastructure thus able to balance and control the arms in the hands of regular citizens.
Ashe County Board of Commissioners has an argument in line with the fact that the recent lax passed on existing gun laws is unjust and dangerous. Carrying of concealed weapons and regulation in public is a bad choice of law by legislatures. The board goes on to raise concerns about allowing guns into public parks and the probability of gun battles based on trivial misunderstandings. It is difficult to estimate the emotional levels of licensed gun carriers to allow roaming owners a sense of cover by law. One of the commissioners, Poe, admits having a licensed gun but respects its legal restrictions. She points out her need for the gun, which includes lone county trips thus a security measure.
The discussion is valid in the sense that if owning and moving with guns is made an ordinary affair, then bloodshed from simple misunderstanding will be on the increase. The classes for gun licensing are meant to assess the prevailing need and also evaluating the mental stability of the owner. We cannot guarantee that everyone will be rational with their weapon at all times and a few guns may be utilized in irresponsible ways. The argument is strengthened through the respect the public accords the Board of commissioners, as well as their willingness to involve the public in discussions that allow their input on the debate. The main weakness of this argument is its focus on the government intention yet it does not give the reader the government’s side of the story. In order to have a powerful argument, we need to be given the reasoning behind the gun laws by the government. The argument also dwells on having the guns off fields and parks as a measure in reducing gun crimes. This is wrong because if we address the gun laws from selective sections, then the damage might thrive in those areas overlooked.
The New York City mayor, Bloomberg, was addressing journalists when he reiterated his concerns about the rising trend of gun crimes the US in general due to lax gun laws. Answering one of the journalists’ questions, he argues that organized crimes had been more successful at the national level than at the county and city levels. He questions why the state should encourage adoption of Gun laws favored by the Federal security Agents and the National Rifle Association in preference to laws dealing with security of regular citizens. Regular citizens include the same law enforcers, who naturally form a larger population than the former. Bloomberg goes ahead to state that a record 34 people get exposed to gun crime on a daily basis thus laying a firm leverage in his argument. Notably, his perception is that the more strict rules to be applied do not in any way interfere with the first and second amendments of the constitution but inversely enhance the same.
His target audience is the American population including legislatures and he does so through members of the press. He convincingly lays the ground of logic by questioning the reason for a collective approach nationwide appearing to be less concerned by the effective grass root campaigns effectively administered at the city and county level. This is with regards to security and gun laws. The argument is effective because it clearly brings out the imbalance in priorities of the nation at large depicted by the contradictory approach between the state and the grassroots (Cities/ counties) with regards to citizen’s security measures. The strength lies in the logic behind tolerance of a security risk favored by the government against what institutions closer to the regular citizens are avoiding. The weakness in the argument is its inability to provide a tangible solution as clearly as it does with the problem identification, thus fails to connect problem and possible plans of action on the ground. This leaves room for speculation thus provides a loophole which can be used by the state in adoption of the gun laws. Bloomberg has employed logic effectively in his arguments and provided supporting facts to his reasoning. He should package the whole argument up to the solution stage to encourage possible actions on his case.
The author argues that, through implementation of the Gun Bans in public places, this has served to increase rather than contain gun related crimes. The primary target audience is the United States authorities and legislatures but goes a long way in creating general public awareness. The sarcastic nature of the title explicitly portrays the picture of how criminals are taking advantage of this situation. The criminals are much aware of the limited resistance that they can encounter during their mission and thus the increase in statistics of public attacks especially in schools and shopping centers. The author is effective through his citing of relationship between areas with stricter laws on gun bans and highly intensive gun attacks by criminals.
The argument is valid through its ability to easily connect with real life experiences of the regular citizens. When the author mentions certain experiences of gun robberies and attacks that occurred recently, he connects emotionally with the audience. The argument is strong because the target audience can relate to this occurrences and the author makes a comparison of this experiences in terms of intensity and prevalence, in relation to how strict the gun bans are applied in various states or cities. Being an emotional matter backed by facts, the level of weakness is minimized especially by having the solution in terms of how the rules are regulated. There is a possibility that crime would still prevail even when the gun bans are lifted because what changes then is the motive of gun related crimes. A basic example is when children get exposed to guns and based on their level of rationality commit crimes based on retaliation or anger rather than robbery.