In this research paper, I will impose a Rogerian style debate about the populous controversial argument in whether gun control laws should be stricter or looser. The main reason that such a debate exists, is because there is a humanitarian goal to lower the rate of violence, killings, and mass murders. I shall review four main articles, two against gun control, and two for gun control. I will discuss the main prepositions of these articles, and place my criticism and position on what they're saying.
I came across four articles debating on the topic of gun control. Two of which are for gun control: With Our Voices and Our Votes Advocating Gun Control by Donna M. Nickitas and Six Snowballs Thrown in the Gun-Control Debate by Adam Gopnik. And two that are against gun control: The Gun Control Debate Requires No Statistics by Lawrence Meyers and Shooting rampages, Mental health, and the Sensationalization of Violence by Miguel A. Faria Jr. The authors Nickitas and Gopnik believe that it would be effective to have stricter gun laws.
While the authors, Meyers and Faria contend that weak gun rights are counter- productive. I understand both sides and have chosen to support loose gun control laws. Therefore, strong gun rights are what I think to be the preferable choice. My reasons will be exposed towards the end of the paper, but for the moment I will disclose the information of the articles about this dispute.
Order custom essay An Analysis of the Current Gun Laws Using the Rogerian Style of Debate with free plagiarism report
In the article, With Our Voices and Our Votes Advocating Gun Control by Donna M. Nickitas, the author argues for stricter gun control laws. Her motive for restrictive gun control is a benevolent one, whereas she is a nurse and a goodhearted person, she wishes to promote the well-being of society by diminishing gun violence. She mentions that there is too much violence being caused and so people demand for, "elected officials to take immediate action to reduce gun violence in America" (Nickitas 1). I agree with her statement that officials should take action to reduce gun violence. Although, I'm sure it is not in the manner she is referring to. She adds, “As a citizen of the state of Connecticut where the shooting at Sandy
Hook Elementary occurred in which twenty children were killed, I will use my voice and advocate for gun control.” (Nickitas 2). This statement clearly shows how this controversial debate is growing more popular in light of occurring tragic events. However, the process and conclusion of this event does not equate to every event that there will be a gun shooting. For instance, in this event, the perpetrator was not stopped; but that could have been the case if either teachers or people in general had access to weapons that could help defend them. Towards the end of this paper, there are some stories that occurred where a normal non-law enforcement individual was able to prevent a death, or possible mass-shooting with their own firearm. This of course, was only plausible because a common person was legally allowed to possess a gun in public.
In the article, The Gun Control Debate Requires No Statistics by Lawrence Meyers, he argues that people should not take internet statistics seriously as they can be "tinkered" with. But the lack of statistics doesn't mean you can't prove gun control advocates wrong, as one can rely on logic.
He goes on by expressing ten facts on why restrictive gun control in America will not be successful. "Gun ownership is a Constitutional right that will not be overturned by legislation, the courts, or constitutional amendment." (Meyers 4). I agree with him here because by enforcing gun control laws, the government is violating the people's rights to the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms). "Reasonable' restrictive legislation at both the state and federal level have been passed, but will always have limits, because they will face Constitutional challenge if they go too far." (Meyers 5). This statement ties in with the first because the government can only do so much before they interfere with the Constitution. "California has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and they made no difference in San Bernardino." (Meyers 6).
I highly agree with Meyers' fact in this statement because if gun control laws are sure-enough harsh in California, should there not be a remarkable difference in violence and shootings, since guns are considered the "cause" of mass shootings? One would think these tragedies would likely decrease in areas with such strict laws. "No further restrictions would make any difference because there are 357 million guns in the U.S." (Meyers 7). His point makes sense because imposing new laws will do nothing to the firearms that are already owned by citizens in America. "No amount of restrictions will ever prevent someone from obtaining a firearm if they want one badly enough." (Meyers 8).
I concord with this statement, because laws and restrictions heavily affect citizens and not criminals, since they do not care about following them. I mean, that is why criminals were given that name, because they are individuals that do not abide with the laws and need to be punished for it. "Restrictions only harm law-abiding individuals, depriving them of any ability to defend themselves." (Meyers 9). I agree with Meyers according to this statement because in certain instances, if a law-abiding citizen were to own a gun and be involved in an occurrence, the individual would have the chance to defend him or herself however it may correspond. "Any attempt at confiscation not only violates the second amendment, but the fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments." (Meyers 10)
I believe this contributes to the idea that gun control will not be successful. "Even if confiscation occurs, it will accomplish nothing, because anyone who wants to kill people will do so whether with guns, kitchen cutlery, bombs, or leaf blowers." (Meyers 12). I believe this is a strong point in this argument because it is 100% true. Gun control laws may not accomplish much because if people have the desire to kill, they will do so with whatever weapon they can find that can be harmful toward any human being. "Any Liberal who finds themselves faced with an armed criminal would, at that moment, wish that either they, or someone nearby, was armed." (Meyers 13).
Cite this Page
An Analysis of the Current Gun Laws Using the Rogerian Style of Debate. (2023, Apr 21). Retrieved from https://phdessay.com/an-analysis-of-the-current-gun-laws-using-the-rogerian-style-of-debate/
Run a free check or have your essay done for you