Assertion-
Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns
In this article Molly Ivins uses direct and aggressive writing to persuade the audience that guns should be banned from the United States. She claims that there is no necessary reason for having guns in daily American life, including self-defense, because all they do is kill. Her argument is to replace them with knives for self-defense- less easily harmful but still usable.
Although her argument is biting and sometimes exaggerated, she does have some complex and true facts. Guns are dangerous and easy to kill with even for a fool, but there are also dangerous things on the market and in homes everyday that could be used to kill. Consider bleach. Swallowing it or mixing it with ammonia could cause toxic fumes and even death. Perhaps it isn’t a weapon, but its still in the hands of ordinary people. Should be ban all bleach because it isn’t safe? No. People just shouldn’t be senseless. Also, even when things are banished they don’t always completely fade away. Consider today’s drug market. Although they are illegal, people still import them and smoke them. The same would happen with guns.
Guns still are the most dangerous because even small children have killed themselves or others accessing guns. Bleach can be removed by poison control, but excessive blood loss can’t. Also, different methods of self-defense could be used instead. By having knives instead of guns, accidental death rates would tremendously fall. It’s easier to shoot yourself accidentally than kill yourself falling on a knife.
I’d have to disagree with this paper. Although it raises good points, banning guns completely is a ridiculous statement. Although it would be helpful to replace knives with guns, you can’t control people with murderous ambitions by just banning guns. They could still kill with knives too. Having the ability to own guns is important because we have free rights, too.
mary w.
No comments:
Post a Comment