The banning of guns has been a controversy for many years. In Ellen Grace Jone’s article, “Why the US should Not Ban Guns,” Jone’s discusses this controversy of making guns illegal in the United States. At the beginning and end of her article, she mentions how Obama may finally act upon the controversy of gun control. Throughout the article she also informs the audience about many gun related incidents. Jone’s agrees that guns are dangerous but declares that banning them will make matters worse.
Jones is a socio-political writer and commentator. She seems to be a credible source by using and listing many facts about the disadvantages gun control has on communities. Recent news of Obama on gun control is shown in the article , making herself credible to her intended audience. Jones uses many citations where her readers can just simply click on the underlined words and find the sources. By having all these resources to go to makes Jones trustworthy and persuasive to her audience.
In her article , Jones argues that making guns illegal can have the opposite effect rather than the intended effect of having less shootings and murders. By providing many facts Jones conveys her point on the gun issue. One fact she uses is how the ” murder rate is 25% higher than last year” in Chicago where there had been some “draconian gun laws.” Another fact Jones uses is how even in other countries such as the UK have had worse problems after guns were outlawed. She states, “…six years later gun-crime had more than doubled. By 2009 gun crime had escalated by 89%.” These facts show how Jones is able to access useful and resourceful items to back up her reasons on the banning of guns.
According to Jones, ”Prohibition; in whatever form, does not work.” She references to the failure of banning alcohol the same as the case of banning armed guns. People will still be able to find any guns that they can get their hands on no matter if they are outlawed or not. She then continues to apply her well done research on the issue. Jones states, ” Fundamentally gun control is not for the protection of people but for the preservation of tyrannical entities.”
Furthermore, Jones mentions in the beginning of the article and the last paragraph about how she wishes firearms did not exist to make a deeper connection to her audience. In other words, even if she doesn’t agree that guns should be legal she tries to make her audience understand that by outlawing them would mean more burdens. She herself has to accept the fact that banning these firearms would only increase gun-crimes.
Jones argument is unique in the fact that she asserts that gun control is “for the preservation of tyrannical entities”. I did not expect for the discussion to take this turn. I can not recall a recent instance in America where laws were established to defend an oppressor. I am sure this type of behavior has been observed in certain foreign countries, but I wouldn’t think this illustration would link to any recent events in America based on the “preservation of tyrannical entities”.
I think your conclusion is very interesting, you add that she doesn’t agree that guns should be legal but yet acknowledges that outlawing them it will cause more crime. I actually thought that by outlawing guns there would be less murder, but apparently not. I like that you gave us evidence such as that by 2009 gun crime had escalated by 89%. Personally I do not agree with outlawing the right to bear a gun, if you are responsible and have a clean record then why not be able to bear a gun for your safety?
I agree with Jones on the fact that “People will still be able to find any guns that they can get their hands on no matter if they are outlawed or not.”
By banning guns you are only making it difficult for innocent people who use guns for things such as protection or hunting. Bad guys will always have acces to firearms legalization or not. Same goes for marijuana the people who don’t need it will be able to access it, while those who do medicinally won’t.
I agree and find it interesting when Jones states “Prohibition; in whatever form, does not work.” By further referencing the failure of banning alcohol as an example, I believe her point begins to get stronger. Even if we were to ban guns, the “ban” on guns will never happen. People will still find ways to get them. So if banned or legal, would it really matter then?