Let's Discuss Gun Rights (and my homework)!

[David]

So for my homework I was supposed to read the following and write a response.

 

 

 

I initially pretty much took a dump on the essay above, but after I read a few positive opinions on it, remembered that I go to one of the most liberal universities in the world and should probably turn it down a notch. I'll post what I wrote and then you can share your thoughts on the above since it's oddly relevant with all of the shootings recently.

Ignoring the side of the gun debate Molly Ivins takes in her “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns” article, I felt that - while entertaining - her arguments were quite weak. It seemed clear that the main purpose of the article was to entertain those who already shared her opinion. She begins her article with an attempt at light-hearted humor by advocating the health benefits of using knives instead of guns. While not a problem by itself, this introduction to her position caused me to question whether or not the rest of her statements were going to be made up of any serious arguments or just more attempts at amusing the reader. As someone reading the essay solely to analyze the arguments, the tone of the piece prevented the author from developing much authority.

 

At one point in her narrative, Molly mentions that the common pro-gun phrase “guns don’t kill people” is “patent nonsense.” She then directly contradicts her own argument in the next sentence with a rhetorical question. Although her intent in the example was clear, the issue with it – and the rest of the paper – is that Molly doesn’t even try to understand or break down opposing arguments with any depth. If the intent of the author is to entertain readers of similar views as opposed to convincing the masses, the article is probably a success depending on where the article is published and the audience. However, the shallow counter-arguments to straw man positions and ad hominem attacks (“gun nuts” and “psychosexual hang-ups”) don’t make a very compelling real-world argument.

[Jake]

2nd page is too hard to read. What university do you go to?

[David]

2nd page is too hard to read. What university do you go to?

You can click to enlarge. I go to the University of Michigan.

[Jake]

Hmm...she seems to miss the point of the right to bear arms. The reason the Founding Fathers gave us that right is so if there is civil war, the civilians can defend themselves. Obviously, the government would still whoop us if they went to war, but that's beside the point. It's more principle than anything else.

 

I would agree that there needs to be a bit more control on guns, though. Gangsters often drop by Virginia to get their guns registered. In Virginia, you can be a psychotic maniac, and all your psychologists could say that you are very dangerous, and you can still get an assault rifle. That actually happened at one point, a few years ago. He went in, got his gun, walked out, and had a massacre. So, yes, we do need a bit more regulation, at least in Virginia.

 

Here's the main reason guns should be legal, though: banning them will create another black market. When alchohol was banned nearly a hundred years ago, gangs took power through their smuggling operations. Cities became very dangerious, and the government realized they made a stupid decision and repealed the law. We don't want that with guns. Because this time, not only will the gangs get more power through smuggling, but they could attack civilians who will have no self defense, with the cops 15 minutes away. That's the last thing we need.

[Brad]

you americans are faggots anyway lmao running around in "gangs" and shit :') thats shit you do when your 12 at school lol

 

Here though you need a gun license, take you do there its just not very strict?

[NoRegrets]

NO NO NO only a few % are in gangs and we do not consider them to be much of a citizen anyway.  but you cant stereotype americans as the only country with gang violence.  turn back the history pages and look at africa, germany, mexico, belgium undrground, china, ukraine, the former USSR, dublin in itself, iraq, etc.    if you look at the modern world brought up in watfare guns are a norm and nothing will change that.  the human condition calls for violence, its part of us.  if you want to get   technical then think back to when you were a kid and you had your group of friends, no matter what happened or who messed with you they had your back, is that not in itself a gang?  maybe not to the extreme of what your talking about but i hate to say it but with that last statement being said everyone on earth is by your definition a faggot.  no offense man but this has nothing to do with faggots or gangs, it has to do with the restrictions of freedom based on a charter written years ago that was based from that time.  not in todays statistics.  how can we try to mold something that was very broad to find what fits us now and days?  what america is facing is nothing more than 2 things,  big government believing that what they think is right not what the people want. and out of proportion over the top media coverage of the sandy hook tragedy.  yes children died and yes it hurts but that does not change the fact that it happens everywhere all over the world.  people die, and if you take away the ability to defend yourself (whether it be arms, or knowledge) then how can we protect those that matter most.   case in point, you take away normal peoples weapons, pistols, AR's, shot guns any means necessary to protect yourself and then make them illegal   now only criminals have them, what do we have to defend against the criminals now?  or if martial law was implemented,  military has ground to shoot on site any threat they see fit, i for one will not sit idly by and die because some PTS nutjob comes home from over a decade of war and cant distinguish the difference between a noncombatant and a insurgent.   your statement is neither political or justifiable, what it is is a bases on how the world views the american government, not the american people.    

[Blake]

Between Problems with American Democracy, Social Deviance, and Modern Asian History, the last thing I want to do is read your homework.

 

But I will say you attacked the author in your written response, which is always great. Shows more comprehension than agreeing with the author.

[Nathan]

NO NO NO only a few % are in gangs and we do not consider them to be much of a citizen anyway.  but you cant stereotype americans as the only country with gang violence.  turn back the history pages and look at africa, germany, mexico, belgium undrground, china, ukraine, the former USSR, dublin in itself, iraq, etc.    if you look at the modern world brought up in watfare guns are a norm and nothing will change that.  

I agree its not fair to stereotype Americans as the only country with gang violence. And I don't think thats being suggested however America as arguably the most powerful country at this point of time has far more gang violence. The examples you gave are countries that are not as economically developed nor are a lot of them recent (obviously the USSR has not been around for a long time).

 

The claim that in the modern world guns are a norm is not really a valid statement. In most countries (I'm talking about more economically developed countries of course African countries still have a variety of issues including guns but they are also behind in terms of technology and social views, these are countries with lots of civil war and power struggles which America does not have.) I think you'll find in most developed countries (the UK, Australila, Germany etc.) guns are heavily regulated. And although there are incidents where people obtain guns illegally through the black market, its quite rare.

 

I can only really speak from whats most relevant to me but for example uniform gun laws in Australia were only introduced in 96 and already gun violence is extremely rare. Something I heard recently is that one reason that may have worked so well is because it was introduced by a conservative government and perhaps if Romney had won the election and was put into the position where he had to review the gun laws then people would accept it far more easily. And of course people who need guns (eg farmers or even for recreational hunting.) can still obtain guns its just regulated far better. A lot of Americans seem to think that they are looking to completely outlaw guns which obviously wouldn't work.

 

Anyway Traag your response seemed really well written and your opinion on it is clear and well supported. Good luck with it

[NoRegrets]

in america we have always been told that the australian gun regulation started after the massacre of tourists nearly twenty years ago but thats all they teach us in school. but in regards to that your regulations are something that america should adopt if what i was told is right. when i said that in the modern world guns are a norm i was referring to the fact that any country with modern technology ie computers, tvs, xbox, ps3 etc  see guns in nearly everything from games to movies.  thus not making it a taboo object to talk about. but yes traag good job lol

[Huygens]

Okay, I have not read the article, because I simply don't have time for that;

 

Guns should be in the army (and police), used for protecting the country. The right to own guns is wrong.

[Tynisa]

Gun's dont kill people, wabbits do.

[David]

Okay, I have not read the article, because I simply don't have time for that;

 

Guns should be in the army (and police), used for protecting the country. The right to own guns is wrong.

 

Not that it matters if you read the article or not, but it's seriously only like 3-4 full paragraphs. Lol.

 

I don't disagree with your opinion in regards to the army/police, but I also don't see how simply owning a gun is "wrong".

[Dy3nasty666]

Im not from the states so I dont really know your laws or customs, howver all I can say is just take away silencers and military rifles. everything else is A Okay!

[Nathan]

in america we have always been told that the australian gun regulation started after the massacre of tourists nearly twenty years ago but thats all they teach us in school. but in regards to that your regulations are something that america should adopt if what i was told is right. when i said that in the modern world guns are a norm i was referring to the fact that any country with modern technology ie computers, tvs, xbox, ps3 etc  see guns in nearly everything from games to movies.  thus not making it a taboo object to talk about. but yes traag good job lol

Yeah, I don't know the details too well since I was so young but it was triggered by a shooting (or possibly a couple I know there was a big one at Monash University shortly before they introduced the new laws)

[Huygens]

Not that it matters if you read the article or not, but it's seriously only like 3-4 full paragraphs. Lol.

 

I don't disagree with your opinion in regards to the army/police, but I also don't see how simply owning a gun is "wrong".

 

What's the use of owning a gun if every use of it would end in death or injury of others/animals? That's why I think owning a gun is wrong. And shooting non-moving targets is just lame...

 

As far as my knoweledge of USA law goes; you have the right to defend your property and yourself, hence the right to own a gun; which also allows the bad guys to own guns. I think because in the past (and thus present) guns were allowed, they can no longer forbid it. Guns are there, people HAVE to defend themselves in a country where guns so commonly present and accepted. It's a part of the American culture, I guess.

 

I'm just glad guns are still 'forbidden' here and in most European countries.