Get a Knife, Get a Dog but Get Rid of Guns by Molly Ivin

The debate over gun control has been raging through the American political systems for years. On one side, there is the National Rifle Association (NRA) and 2nd Amendment-citing citizens who use their firearms for hunting and self-defense. On the other, there is Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) and followers of the Brady Campaign who want to ban guns on the basis that they are dangerous. Both sides have strong arguments, anchored in historical precedent and statistical analysis. Anti-gun control lobbyists’ arguments include the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment, the definition of “militia” as any adult male, self-defense, the relative uselessness of permits and regulations, and court cases in favor of firearm possession. Pro-gun control activists

The arguments of the anti-gun lobby are generally based on so-called "common-sense" and emotional pleading, with relatively few statistics backing up their claims. They argue that the Second Amendment to the Constitution is only giving the states the right to regulate militia activity and therefore possess and "bear" arms (Rowland 3). Some of the more extreme anti-gun lobby advocate repealing the Second Amendment altogether. Since the most extreme advocates of gun control wish to ban guns regardless of the Constitution, it becomes necessary to not just examine the law of the land, and the courts interpretation, but also the underlying philosophies of both sides of the debate.

In the essay “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns” by Molly Ivins the author argues that guns should be banned. She argues that guns should only be owned by the military as that is her interpretation of the phrase a well-regulated militia found in the second amendment. She also argues that there is no use for guns anymore and that there only use is to kill. Finally she states that, for protection, people should get either a knife or a dog. Although many people die as a result of gun violence, banning guns would not solve this problem because criminals can always obtain guns illegally and it would violate the second amendment taking a constitutional right away from citizens.

The general argument made by the author, Shiha Dalmia, in her work, The Case Against Banning Guns, is that the government cannot take away the rights of guns from millions of people. They cannot think that removing the second amendment will make it easier for potential killers to not get a gun, even when there are millions of guns around the world. More specifically, it will not be easy to tell people to give up their guns to make the world a safer place. Maybe there will be a few people willing to hand over their guns because they do not want anymore mass murders. Then again, not all murderers are performed with guns, surprisingly some are by vehicles.

In the Article “Fear” by Marilynn Robinson, Robinson concludes that the cause of fear in many citizens deals partly with the second amendment meaning the right to carry and bear arms. Being said that, Robinson Attempts to convince the reader that the possession of weapons should be abolished due to the violence in The United States. People all around are facing violence, not necessarily due to weapons, but due to the fact that they cannot have the sort of self-protection. American citizens should be in favor of the second amendment because it keeps them safe when they carry weapons as a form of protection.

The argument that the second amendment protects private ownership of a gun is invalid, even according to the United States government. On the other hand, guns are not wholly to blame for all killings and suicides because education and treatment could decrease the likelihood.

For many years, people have been pushing the American government to implement new laws that deal with gun control. Supporters of the argument claim that increased gun control will drastically reduce the crime rate in America. Nevertheless, a majority of gun control arguments are formed from strict control of data and emotional appeal. The mainstream media picks up these stories and broadcasts them to viewers without providing any context to them. While gun control activists assert that gun control is necessary, the American government should not ban guns because of the following reasons: potential vulnerability of innocent people being shot at by criminals and the inability for people to defend themselves against their own government.

With all the murders that happen in our country, it’s only logical for people to want a way to protect not only themselves, but their loved ones as well. However, the opposing argument would be that having these weapons is what causes the problem. While this is correct, people can use everyday objects as weapons. They

The most common reason why people argue that they need to have a gun is for safety, so they can protect themselves against burglars. If a burglar would come into your house, you would have a better chance defending yourself and your family with a gun, than if you did not have a gun. The number of concealed weapon owners is at an all time high. In comparison the number of homicides had drastically decreased alongside the growing rate of legal concealed weapons. This number had been nearly cut in half in the past 20 years(Goldberg).

of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be

The second amendment of The Constitution of the Unites States rules that “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.” In recent years this has become a highlighted and popular discussion topic throughout people and media. Typical with American media the subject of gun control is visited with broad stroked of red and the use of fear tactics while completely ignoring the complicated and underling positives and negatives of public access to firearms and the benefits and risks associated with this freedom. Most people do not carry a weapon at all and may question others who do because of the moderately low risk of being a victim of a crime. Those how carry however like to think “Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.”

Gun control and gun rights are crucial topics that have been debated for years. Some people believe that civilians should not have the right to own a gun while others believe it is our god given right to bear arms. The second amendment of the Bill of Rights states “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.”(Shermer). This is a right that society has had for years and is one of the main reasons why no solution has been reached yet. There are two main sides to this debate, Gun control advocates focus on the serious negative effects of gun availability on health and safety, while gun-ownership advocates emphasize the lawful use of guns and

Dr. Roth also notes that “there may be some self-defense benefit: Victims who defended themselves with guns were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all.” It is understandable that when one uses firearms against an intruder or a robber, they are afraid to report their injuries to the police even though it was used for self-defense. Dr. Roth also proves his statements by giving statistics, “While 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30 percent, 27 percent, and 12 percent.”

Gun Control has been a controversy for as long as people can remember. This Controversy has increased recently due to the mass shootings taken place all over the United States. Gun control has its pros and cons, Some believe “Gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions.”While others say that the Second Amendment “protects an individual’s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime.” To be able to pick a side one must look at the argument from both perspectives, that 's what this paper accomplishes. You must go into detail about this issue and conduct research to form your own opinion.

In areas where crime is high, guns can keep law-abiding citizens safe. As stated by