Right now in the United States, there is a nationwide issue as to whether or not the government should enforce stricter policies on gun control. Currently, any citizen of the United States has the right to obtain a gun license, and then purchase a gun. Some people have a problem with this, while others do not. It would seem that having tighter regulations on the public’s ownership of guns would be the best thing for the government to do. It would make our society a much more comfortable and safer place to live in.
According to the “Time Magazine”, there were 31,224 gun-related deaths in the United States throughout the year 2010. That is an awfully high number, and a lot of deaths that could have and should have been prevented. Most people will buy guns to store away in a secret location in their house just to feel safe incase their house is broken into one day. As good of an idea as this may sound, a lot of those people will end up using their gun(s) in a violent manner. If an argument between a husband and a wife breaks out, there is a chance that one of them could try and use the gun against the other in a violent way. Another way that a lot of gun-related crimes take place is when one person becomes intoxicated, gets into a fight, and uses his/her gun to shoot the person that they are fighting with. Maybe the most common violent use of guns comes through the existence of street gangs all throughout the country. Whether it is New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, street gangs exist and are very prominent. When gang fights break out, they almost always involve guns, and as we all know, guns are extremely deadly. While many people are in favor of heightening the gun restrictions in the United States, there are some people who are against the restrictions.
There is a large portion of the population who may think that the government should not increase the gun restrictions. These people may argue that a person is much safer in society if they own a gun, or that they will be better able to defend themselves against burglars by owning a gun. While these are valid arguments, they are not good enough. People say that they want a gun to defend themselves against another person with a gun. Well, if the government increased its gun policies, less and less people would have guns, therefore making the need to own a gun for self-defense less necessary. Most crime results from the use of guns. If guns are made harder to obtain, less crime would occur, and fewer people would feel inclined to own a gun for protection. This would also decrease the number of gun-related crimes that involve spouses fighting, or people who are intoxicated.
The only way that people should be allowed to own a gun is if they hold a government position, such as a Police Officer, where it is necessary to have a gun. Other than that, guns should not be open to the public. When it comes to hunting animals, guns should only be rented to people. The people who rent the guns should also have to return the gun by an exact date and time, or else they will be sought after by the Police.
Gun control is a major issue affecting the United States. There are way too many gun-related crimes that take place each year, and the government needs to do something about it. While some people oppose tighter gun restrictions, it only seems logical for the government to strengthen them.
As of now the right to bear arms is one of our rights under the constitution. Most Americans believe we should not have this right. These individuals believe that all guns do is cause trouble, which they couldn’t be more wrong. According to an article in the National Institute of Justice, thirty-five percent of people who own guns are participating in hunting and another thirty-five percent of people own guns for the sole purpose of the sport. What do I mean by sport, well they participate in skeet shooting and target shooting competitions. That’s seventy percent of the gun owner’s population.
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Many gun owners live by this saying, which basically means if you own a gun it doesn’t necessarily mean you are going to use at against a person. Most households have a gun and that is basically just for so they can have a “protected” mindset. According to the just facts website approximately fifty million households had guns but their were only four thousand nine hundred seventy- seven cases where a gun was used in a household.
As for gangs having access to guns, it would be almost impossible to stop them from having them. Gangs are who they are because they do illegal things, what makes you think that if we have gun control laws they won’t find some shady people to get them “hook ups.” Another point is that gangs don’t only use guns as weapons, they use such objects as knives and baseball bats, Are we going to have restrictions on those everyday items? The answer is no. People think we can’t ban those things because those aren’t usually involved in crimes, well enough though gun violence is higher knives and other household objects are right up there with them.
Even though we have the right to bear arms does not mean any one can own a gun. There are a lot of restrictions on who is able to own a gun which allows the government to make sure only hypothetically “good people” are able to purchase and own guns. To be able to own a gun you must have a valid gun license. To obtain this you must be at least eighteen years old, have a clean record, you must sign a piece of paper that says you will not use it in a violent matter, and finally you can only use the gun in the state you have the permit for. These restrictions make sure only the qualified persons are able to buy a gun.
Whether or not you want to believe it guns actually help our society. They are good for the economy because of the buying and selling process, they help control animal population by hunting, and they are the reason we are the United States of America and not a part of Britain. Setting new gun control laws wouldn’t make the violence any better because how do you expect to get the already purchased guns away from the people that shouldn’t have them? Of course gun owners who use the guns for hunting and for sport will turn the guns in, but what is that accomplishing? The people who use there guns correctly and for the right reasons are the ones that get punished, because we all know that the people who commit the crimes aren’t going to give there guns up. Criminals aren’t going to give there guns up because how else would they commit crimes and if they have already committed crimes they won’t want to turn themselves in. Gangs won’t turn in there guns because that’s how they get their “street credit.” The gang with the most guns and weapons are the ones that are most feared and establish their dominance.
So overall if you really want these gun control laws then be ready to deal with the more than likely increase in crime because the ones we don’t want to have guns will and no one else will so they will take advantage of it and more than likely make our country worse than when we didn’t have gun control laws.
As American citizens, we do have the “right to bear arms” according to the Constitution of the United States. Many people, however, have abused this right. Because of this, the nationwide debate as to whether there should be stricter laws on the use and purchases of guns has arisen. To keep the people of this country feeling safe and secure, our government needs to enforce stricter gun laws.
You raised a good point in your last argument when you said that “Criminals aren’t going to give their guns up” if stricter gun control laws are put into place. There is no way that the government will be able to take away guns from people who have already purchased them. What the government can, and should do, is make the selling of guns to society illegal. This will prevent any future gang members, as well as the rest of society, from legally purchasing guns. Yes, they will most likely find ways to obtain them illegally, but it will be a lot harder than purchasing them from a gun store like they can today. You also said that guns are not the only weapon used by gang members to commit crime, which is true. While gangs may use other weapons such at bats and knives, neither are nearly as powerful and lethal as a gun. Guns are also much easier to commit crimes with since they only require one simple pull of the trigger instead of multiple swings of a bat or stabs with a knife. The point is, making guns illegal or much harder to own would greatly reduce gang violence throughout the country.
On the matter of using guns as a purpose of hunting animals, this should still be allowed, but only if the guns are rented as I stated with my previous argument. You asked, “but what is that accomplishing?” It is actually accomplishing a lot. People will have to turn the guns back in after a certain deadline. This will prevent them from purchasing the guns and possibly using them in a criminal way in the future. This is not a form of punishment towards the people who use guns in the right manor. It is strictly preventing the purchasing of guns by society. Hunters can still rent them during the hunting seasons.
There really is no necessity to owning a gun in our society. People may argue that it gives them that extra sense of security in their homes, but that does not seem to be a strong enough argument to keep the selling of guns to society legal. What really is the purpose of owning a gun? The people who buy them to help themselves feel safer at home will most likely never be faced with a situation in which they are forced to use their gun. Instead, the gun sits at home and draws the risk of it being used in a foolish way, such as a kid getting a hold of it, or a spouse using it during a domestic dispute. There simply does not seem to be any strong evidence as to why the government should keep the selling of guns legal. Hunters can still rent their guns during the hunting seasons to prevent the overcrowding of certain animals like deer. The sale of guns to the public, however, should be banned.
Our society today seems to be getting more and more afraid of guns. So many people are trying to introduce stricter gun laws when in reality they are already very strict. Yes you can go purchase a gun at many locations but like I stated in the earlier there are several requirements that a person needs to have before they are able to purchase a gun. You made a good point about how if guns were not sold in stores then it would reduce gang crime, but the truth is gangs will find a way to get guns no matter what it takes. More than likely they would use the guns they already have to hold up a place that has them or like I stated in the last post find an inside guy who can give them “hook ups.”
One point you made about civilians keeping guns in there houses is pointless because they will never have to use them, this is false because according to the chacha.com there are over two million robberies in the United States every year! This means that over two million robberies could have prevented by having a gun in the household. Even if they weren’t to use the gun, just showing the robbers that you have a gun will make them run faster than a horse at the Kentucky Derby.
Another good point you made was having people, such as hunters rent their guns. Although this is a good system, hunters are usually the kind of people who take pride in their guns and want to have a huge trophy case with the piece of game they shot along with the gun they used. Also they are the majority of civilians that keep a gun in their house just in case of a burglary because they want to make sure there families are safe every night. Having to rent a gun would also be very expensive in the long run. According to cabelas.com a basic rifle cost between one hundred and fifty to four hundred dollars, so every time you go hunting you would have to rent those expensive guns and bullets which if you are a frequent hunter it turns out to be a lot more expensive than if you were to own one of the guns and just have to purchase bullets.
Another great point you make is that guns are a lot more powerful than knives or bats. This is true from a distance guns are a lot worse but if you are being robbed in the close quarters of your house a blow to the head by a bat or a stab in the stomach by a knife would do the same amount of destructive damage as a gun shot wound. Plus if you are suppose to defend your house you will want a gun because what if the burglar is armed (which they almost always are), your not going to want to get close enough to where they have the chance to use there weapon before you are able to use yours.
Guns are very dangerous, as we all know but if put into the right hands they will only performing good deeds such as protection, hunting, and sport. I believe we shouldn’t enforce stricter policies on the already strict gun laws we have now. So as I end this post I will leave you with a little something to think about. What if your house was robbed and these stricter gun laws were enforced, how would you protect you and your family?
Kurt's first comment has a very good use of statistics that would draw readers in and pull at their heartstrings. However, he does not factor in how these gun-related deaths were caused; some could have been accidents. He also makes a generalization about guns being kept in the home, saying that they could be used for violence against a spouse. While that is not unheard of, it does not seem very common. In the rebuttal, Brian also makes good use of his statistics which seems to override Kurt's statistics. He approaches the second paragraph using a Republican quote, which really grabbed my attention since I believe this to be true. Brian's approach seemed to be from that of the 2nd amendment and he did a great job of explaining all parts of it. Although, the first paragraph in his second argument was confusing to me and I got a little lost. Brian did an awesome job of praising Kurt’s comments in his previous post before addressing the problem in the last three paragraphs of his last post. While Brian makes great points about the 2nd amendment, how everyone should have the right to keep and bear arms, Kurt makes the valid point that with every rule, there are rule breakers. Many people have abused their right to the 2nd amendment, which is why these arguments arise today.
The first argument is good in that it addresses all of the negative uses of guns and comes to the conclusion that overall guns are bad and should be banned. No specific lines stood out to me because I felt the whole piece was on why guns are bad. The argument for guns was very good and it gave statistics that very well represented the anti-gun control side of the argument. Also the line “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” was very good because it explains that people can kill each other without guns. The gun control rebuttal was started out pretty weak in my opinion because the student does not address the fact that the second amendment needs to be taken out. However the conclusion was very solid because it restated all the main points against allowing the ownership against guns. Once again the pro gun argument had very strong statistics in support of the argument for guns. Also the explanation of how gangs will be able to get a hold of guns regardless of the laws was a very good point against having gun control. Overall this was a very good debate and both sides gave very good points and used solid statistics.
In the beginning of Kurt’s post I had no idea which side of the argument he was on. He should claim his argument right off the bat. His organization was kind of confusing and really jumbled up. On the other hand, he does state the opposition more than once and really uses statistics to address his point. His idea of “If guns are made harder to obtain, less crime would occur” sounds like a slippery slope. This is kind of exaggerated and I am not sure if this will actually be an outcome. He then brings up the idea of hunting. After this comment, he might have lost some followers. Hunting is considered a sport and gun control involving this sport is already a big deal. When he commented on Brian’s statement about knives and bats being just as harmful, this really grabbed my attention. I thought Brian’s comment was a very good one but after this point, I have changed my mind. He is very good at getting his point across. Just as Kurt did, Brian addressed the opposition also. One positive thing Brian did was the statistic of 70% of gun owners use guns for sporting events. This is a very good and real statistic. I did not know this and it really hit me on how many guns are used for non-violence affairs. He then on the other hand says “fifty million households had guns but there were only four thousand nine hundred seventy- seven cases where a gun was used in a household.” After reading this quote it made me think. Yes fifty million is a lot more than four thousand nine hundred and seventy-seven, but in reality that is four thousand nine hundred seventy-seven too many confrontations of guns being used in a household. Like I stated before, I really liked his comment on knives and bats being weapons also. But after Kurt claimed his point it really changed my mind. He also claims that gun laws are already a part of the United States such as having a clean record and obtaining a gun license. This is important to address because the restrictions that the United States already has on gun control are strong.
Brian and Kurt’s arguments had me going to each side while reading each post. Brian seemed to have a booming voice when referring to his side of the argument. He did a great job giving examples of society and how they would act toward a certain decision. Kurt on the other hand came up with great ideas as alternatives and giving certain situation and the outcome of it. I enjoyed what the way he went about hunting and having possession of a gun in the household because it made me think of all the stories I’ve heard about what happened to guns in houses. Next, the two of them were very respectful when referring to the other’s counterarguments and ideas referring to them. Their appeal to our day to day lives gives an emotional side to the argument as a whole, and the both of them but me in a spot that I cannot make up my mind.
Right now in the United States, there is a nationwide issue as to whether or not the government should enforce stricter policies on gun control. Currently, any citizen of the United States has the right to obtain a gun license, and then purchase a gun. Some people have a problem with this, while others do not. It would seem that having tighter regulations on the public’s ownership of guns would be the best thing for the government to do. It would make our society a much more comfortable and safer place to live in.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the “Time Magazine”, there were 31,224 gun-related deaths in the United States throughout the year 2010. That is an awfully high number, and a lot of deaths that could have and should have been prevented. Most people will buy guns to store away in a secret location in their house just to feel safe incase their house is broken into one day. As good of an idea as this may sound, a lot of those people will end up using their gun(s) in a violent manner. If an argument between a husband and a wife breaks out, there is a chance that one of them could try and use the gun against the other in a violent way. Another way that a lot of gun-related crimes take place is when one person becomes intoxicated, gets into a fight, and uses his/her gun to shoot the person that they are fighting with. Maybe the most common violent use of guns comes through the existence of street gangs all throughout the country. Whether it is New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, street gangs exist and are very prominent. When gang fights break out, they almost always involve guns, and as we all know, guns are extremely deadly. While many people are in favor of heightening the gun restrictions in the United States, there are some people who are against the restrictions.
There is a large portion of the population who may think that the government should not increase the gun restrictions. These people may argue that a person is much safer in society if they own a gun, or that they will be better able to defend themselves against burglars by owning a gun. While these are valid arguments, they are not good enough. People say that they want a gun to defend themselves against another person with a gun. Well, if the government increased its gun policies, less and less people would have guns, therefore making the need to own a gun for self-defense less necessary. Most crime results from the use of guns. If guns are made harder to obtain, less crime would occur, and fewer people would feel inclined to own a gun for protection. This would also decrease the number of gun-related crimes that involve spouses fighting, or people who are intoxicated.
The only way that people should be allowed to own a gun is if they hold a government position, such as a Police Officer, where it is necessary to have a gun. Other than that, guns should not be open to the public. When it comes to hunting animals, guns should only be rented to people. The people who rent the guns should also have to return the gun by an exact date and time, or else they will be sought after by the Police.
Gun control is a major issue affecting the United States. There are way too many gun-related crimes that take place each year, and the government needs to do something about it. While some people oppose tighter gun restrictions, it only seems logical for the government to strengthen them.
As of now the right to bear arms is one of our rights under the constitution. Most Americans believe we should not have this right. These individuals believe that all guns do is cause trouble, which they couldn’t be more wrong. According to an article in the National Institute of Justice, thirty-five percent of people who own guns are participating in hunting and another thirty-five percent of people own guns for the sole purpose of the sport. What do I mean by sport, well they participate in skeet shooting and target shooting competitions. That’s seventy percent of the gun owner’s population.
ReplyDelete“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Many gun owners live by this saying, which basically means if you own a gun it doesn’t necessarily mean you are going to use at against a person. Most households have a gun and that is basically just for so they can have a “protected” mindset. According to the just facts website approximately fifty million households had guns but their were only four thousand nine hundred seventy- seven cases where a gun was used in a household.
As for gangs having access to guns, it would be almost impossible to stop them from having them. Gangs are who they are because they do illegal things, what makes you think that if we have gun control laws they won’t find some shady people to get them “hook ups.” Another point is that gangs don’t only use guns as weapons, they use such objects as knives and baseball bats, Are we going to have restrictions on those everyday items? The answer is no. People think we can’t ban those things because those aren’t usually involved in crimes, well enough though gun violence is higher knives and other household objects are right up there with them.
Even though we have the right to bear arms does not mean any one can own a gun. There are a lot of restrictions on who is able to own a gun which allows the government to make sure only hypothetically “good people” are able to purchase and own guns. To be able to own a gun you must have a valid gun license. To obtain this you must be at least eighteen years old, have a clean record, you must sign a piece of paper that says you will not use it in a violent matter, and finally you can only use the gun in the state you have the permit for. These restrictions make sure only the qualified persons are able to buy a gun.
Whether or not you want to believe it guns actually help our society. They are good for the economy because of the buying and selling process, they help control animal population by hunting, and they are the reason we are the United States of America and not a part of Britain. Setting new gun control laws wouldn’t make the violence any better because how do you expect to get the already purchased guns away from the people that shouldn’t have them? Of course gun owners who use the guns for hunting and for sport will turn the guns in, but what is that accomplishing? The people who use there guns correctly and for the right reasons are the ones that get punished, because we all know that the people who commit the crimes aren’t going to give there guns up. Criminals aren’t going to give there guns up because how else would they commit crimes and if they have already committed crimes they won’t want to turn themselves in. Gangs won’t turn in there guns because that’s how they get their “street credit.” The gang with the most guns and weapons are the ones that are most feared and establish their dominance.
So overall if you really want these gun control laws then be ready to deal with the more than likely increase in crime because the ones we don’t want to have guns will and no one else will so they will take advantage of it and more than likely make our country worse than when we didn’t have gun control laws.
As American citizens, we do have the “right to bear arms” according to the Constitution of the United States. Many people, however, have abused this right. Because of this, the nationwide debate as to whether there should be stricter laws on the use and purchases of guns has arisen. To keep the people of this country feeling safe and secure, our government needs to enforce stricter gun laws.
ReplyDeleteYou raised a good point in your last argument when you said that “Criminals aren’t going to give their guns up” if stricter gun control laws are put into place. There is no way that the government will be able to take away guns from people who have already purchased them. What the government can, and should do, is make the selling of guns to society illegal. This will prevent any future gang members, as well as the rest of society, from legally purchasing guns. Yes, they will most likely find ways to obtain them illegally, but it will be a lot harder than purchasing them from a gun store like they can today. You also said that guns are not the only weapon used by gang members to commit crime, which is true. While gangs may use other weapons such at bats and knives, neither are nearly as powerful and lethal as a gun. Guns are also much easier to commit crimes with since they only require one simple pull of the trigger instead of multiple swings of a bat or stabs with a knife. The point is, making guns illegal or much harder to own would greatly reduce gang violence throughout the country.
On the matter of using guns as a purpose of hunting animals, this should still be allowed, but only if the guns are rented as I stated with my previous argument. You asked, “but what is that accomplishing?” It is actually accomplishing a lot. People will have to turn the guns back in after a certain deadline. This will prevent them from purchasing the guns and possibly using them in a criminal way in the future. This is not a form of punishment towards the people who use guns in the right manor. It is strictly preventing the purchasing of guns by society. Hunters can still rent them during the hunting seasons.
There really is no necessity to owning a gun in our society. People may argue that it gives them that extra sense of security in their homes, but that does not seem to be a strong enough argument to keep the selling of guns to society legal. What really is the purpose of owning a gun? The people who buy them to help themselves feel safer at home will most likely never be faced with a situation in which they are forced to use their gun. Instead, the gun sits at home and draws the risk of it being used in a foolish way, such as a kid getting a hold of it, or a spouse using it during a domestic dispute. There simply does not seem to be any strong evidence as to why the government should keep the selling of guns legal. Hunters can still rent their guns during the hunting seasons to prevent the overcrowding of certain animals like deer. The sale of guns to the public, however, should be banned.
Our society today seems to be getting more and more afraid of guns. So many people are trying to introduce stricter gun laws when in reality they are already very strict. Yes you can go purchase a gun at many locations but like I stated in the earlier there are several requirements that a person needs to have before they are able to purchase a gun. You made a good point about how if guns were not sold in stores then it would reduce gang crime, but the truth is gangs will find a way to get guns no matter what it takes. More than likely they would use the guns they already have to hold up a place that has them or like I stated in the last post find an inside guy who can give them “hook ups.”
ReplyDeleteOne point you made about civilians keeping guns in there houses is pointless because they will never have to use them, this is false because according to the chacha.com there are over two million robberies in the United States every year! This means that over two million robberies could have prevented by having a gun in the household. Even if they weren’t to use the gun, just showing the robbers that you have a gun will make them run faster than a horse at the Kentucky Derby.
Another good point you made was having people, such as hunters rent their guns. Although this is a good system, hunters are usually the kind of people who take pride in their guns and want to have a huge trophy case with the piece of game they shot along with the gun they used. Also they are the majority of civilians that keep a gun in their house just in case of a burglary because they want to make sure there families are safe every night. Having to rent a gun would also be very expensive in the long run. According to cabelas.com a basic rifle cost between one hundred and fifty to four hundred dollars, so every time you go hunting you would have to rent those expensive guns and bullets which if you are a frequent hunter it turns out to be a lot more expensive than if you were to own one of the guns and just have to purchase bullets.
Another great point you make is that guns are a lot more powerful than knives or bats. This is true from a distance guns are a lot worse but if you are being robbed in the close quarters of your house a blow to the head by a bat or a stab in the stomach by a knife would do the same amount of destructive damage as a gun shot wound. Plus if you are suppose to defend your house you will want a gun because what if the burglar is armed (which they almost always are), your not going to want to get close enough to where they have the chance to use there weapon before you are able to use yours.
Guns are very dangerous, as we all know but if put into the right hands they will only performing good deeds such as protection, hunting, and sport. I believe we shouldn’t enforce stricter policies on the already strict gun laws we have now. So as I end this post I will leave you with a little something to think about. What if your house was robbed and these stricter gun laws were enforced, how would you protect you and your family?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKurt's first comment has a very good use of statistics that would draw readers in and pull at their heartstrings. However, he does not factor in how these gun-related deaths were caused; some could have been accidents. He also makes a generalization about guns being kept in the home, saying that they could be used for violence against a spouse. While that is not unheard of, it does not seem very common. In the rebuttal, Brian also makes good use of his statistics which seems to override Kurt's statistics. He approaches the second paragraph using a Republican quote, which really grabbed my attention since I believe this to be true. Brian's approach seemed to be from that of the 2nd amendment and he did a great job of explaining all parts of it. Although, the first paragraph in his second argument was confusing to me and I got a little lost. Brian did an awesome job of praising Kurt’s comments in his previous post before addressing the problem in the last three paragraphs of his last post. While Brian makes great points about the 2nd amendment, how everyone should have the right to keep and bear arms, Kurt makes the valid point that with every rule, there are rule breakers. Many people have abused their right to the 2nd amendment, which is why these arguments arise today.
ReplyDeleteThe first argument is good in that it addresses all of the negative uses of guns and comes to the conclusion that overall guns are bad and should be banned. No specific lines stood out to me because I felt the whole piece was on why guns are bad. The argument for guns was very good and it gave statistics that very well represented the anti-gun control side of the argument. Also the line “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” was very good because it explains that people can kill each other without guns. The gun control rebuttal was started out pretty weak in my opinion because the student does not address the fact that the second amendment needs to be taken out. However the conclusion was very solid because it restated all the main points against allowing the ownership against guns. Once again the pro gun argument had very strong statistics in support of the argument for guns. Also the explanation of how gangs will be able to get a hold of guns regardless of the laws was a very good point against having gun control. Overall this was a very good debate and both sides gave very good points and used solid statistics.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of Kurt’s post I had no idea which side of the argument he was on. He should claim his argument right off the bat. His organization was kind of confusing and really jumbled up. On the other hand, he does state the opposition more than once and really uses statistics to address his point. His idea of “If guns are made harder to obtain, less crime would occur” sounds like a slippery slope. This is kind of exaggerated and I am not sure if this will actually be an outcome. He then brings up the idea of hunting. After this comment, he might have lost some followers. Hunting is considered a sport and gun control involving this sport is already a big deal. When he commented on Brian’s statement about knives and bats being just as harmful, this really grabbed my attention. I thought Brian’s comment was a very good one but after this point, I have changed my mind. He is very good at getting his point across.
ReplyDeleteJust as Kurt did, Brian addressed the opposition also. One positive thing Brian did was the statistic of 70% of gun owners use guns for sporting events. This is a very good and real statistic. I did not know this and it really hit me on how many guns are used for non-violence affairs. He then on the other hand says “fifty million households had guns but there were only four thousand nine hundred seventy- seven cases where a gun was used in a household.” After reading this quote it made me think. Yes fifty million is a lot more than four thousand nine hundred and seventy-seven, but in reality that is four thousand nine hundred seventy-seven too many confrontations of guns being used in a household. Like I stated before, I really liked his comment on knives and bats being weapons also. But after Kurt claimed his point it really changed my mind. He also claims that gun laws are already a part of the United States such as having a clean record and obtaining a gun license. This is important to address because the restrictions that the United States already has on gun control are strong.
Brian and Kurt’s arguments had me going to each side while reading each post. Brian seemed to have a booming voice when referring to his side of the argument. He did a great job giving examples of society and how they would act toward a certain decision. Kurt on the other hand came up with great ideas as alternatives and giving certain situation and the outcome of it. I enjoyed what the way he went about hunting and having possession of a gun in the household because it made me think of all the stories I’ve heard about what happened to guns in houses. Next, the two of them were very respectful when referring to the other’s counterarguments and ideas referring to them. Their appeal to our day to day lives gives an emotional side to the argument as a whole, and the both of them but me in a spot that I cannot make up my mind.
ReplyDelete