Comments on: 12 Gun Control Articles to Support Your Argumentative Essay

By: sean...

sean... — Tue, 09 Jan 2018 17:08:00 +0000

In reply to Naomi Tepper. Compare the WHOLE state of say Vermont w/NO permits for concealed carry etc to just the city of say chitcago.Ha!Ha!

By: Mr. Pixel727

Mr. Pixel727 — Tue, 05 Dec 2017 12:47:00 +0000

gun control is bad

By: Anita Qin

Anita Qin — Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:25:00 +0000

There are statistics and articles show that allowing permits to carry guns actually lowered the crime rates. I will just give the most remarkable example here. In Kennesaw Georgia, it is law that every household should own at least one firearm, and after enforcing this law, burglary rates dropped 89%. And all your arguments are “there is no evidence”, “there is no statistics” and “people would choose to not own guns”, “criminals would…” You were just too lazy to do some research, and all you said were just based on your assumption and imagination. Your argument has no evidence and statistic at all. Absolutely you are too naïve to assume that gun control helps to solve the problems. Gun controls are for naïve person lol

By: Marie Grandy

Marie Grandy — Sat, 11 Nov 2017 19:06:00 +0000

Might as well put a ban on cars and motor vehicles …they are the deadliest of weapons …people use them with or without license..at nearly any age….they can kill others or the person using them, whether by chance or on purpose. They have been used by terrorist, criminals and the every day Joe. More people respect gun’s and gun responsibilities than the average motor vehicle driver respects the responsibilities of driving a dangerous..easy to load…killing machine. Yep, I think that is a fair comparison… car/gun… and please, always be knowledgeable and respectful of your tools!

By: progun tactics

progun tactics — Fri, 26 May 2017 13:38:00 +0000

Molon Labe. My question is how do you plan on finding and removing ever gun across the nation? Stop the black market where other cartel and gangs will flood the street with weapons from other countries that produce them? Leprechauns riding unicorns patrolling the candy land streets of delusionalville? So the plan is to remove them from the law abiding citizens (because they are the only ones that would turn them in without a fire fight). Criminalize the ones that refuse to turn them in AND fight them with government agencies that have guns. So now with the law abiding citizen are disarmed, the ones that refuse to be disarmed are criminals and the gangs and criminals keep their firearms because well…they are criminals…yeap seems like a solid plan to me! Let’s move forward with this and see how well it turns out. Hitler, Stalin, Pot and Moa would be proud!

By: Barry Gowland

Barry Gowland — Thu, 18 May 2017 00:35:00 +0000

As an Englishman I have been – on and off – following this for years. Up till fairly recently, under the Truck Acts( passed in the 19th century) stipulated that all persons in gainful employment had to be paid in “current currency of the realm”. In other words, they had to be paid in cash. Thus the employer would send the pay clerk to the bank, after having worked out how many items of each piece of currency was needed to render the exact amount down to the last smallest value coin. He would go to the same bank, the same local branch, and the same time.
Pre-WW2 this was for the most part safe. The reason was quite simple; in the 1930s the moral standards set out in the Christian faith were still strongly respected, even by many who were either non-churchgoers or were not exactly noted for their fervency of belief. However, the influence of the Sunday School movement was very strong.
WW2 disrupted this, a factor commented on unfavourably in Vol.1 of Sir John Hamerton’s work, The Second Great War. All the evacuations had the effect of depriving many of the “means of grace” that inculcated moral standards. The result was a progressive decline in such standards post-WW2. Then, first one, then another began to notice the pay clerks’ routine. Result? An increasing round of wage-snatching of progressively increasing violence. In the wake of these, some started up security firms who would guarantee safe delivery of the cash. Eventually some security firms’ personnel began carrying handguns. One incident in December, 1961 fairly threw the cat among the pigeons. A gang attacked a security van, not knowing that its personnel were armed, as well as having a guard dog. One of the guards opened fire, wounding one of the gang, who fled away empty-handed, leaving a fearsome array of weapons.
The reaction of the police was to demand the disarming of all bank guards; one senior police officer even bleated that was “better to lose £100,000” than to risk the criminals carrying guns in response. I suppose he had in mind that Parliament had not long before decided to limit the categories of capital murder to, among other, “murder committed in the furtherance of theft”, but he may have also feared a more widespread rise in armed robberies. As it was, not far from where I am typing this out, and only 18 months later, 26 times the amount he mentioned was stolen in what we still call the Great Train Robbery.
Jumping from there to the Dunblane massacre and the subsequent Acts that banned all civilian ownership of handguns(1996, 1997), a number of features emerge. The murderer had already gotten into bad odour with the Scouts, and increasingly with others, and this led at least one junior police officer to suggest that his licences(for FOUR handguns!) be revoked. In the wake of Lord Cullen’s report the cop’s superior resigned. However, the reaction of at least one, if not more, of London’s grubbier tabloids was to scream out louder for all civilian ownership of handguns to be banned, a sentiment led one Tory MP to say that he now knew what it was like to have been a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. For the Sun, read Der Stürmer; for the Sun’s then editor read Julius Streicher, who duly swung at a rope’s end for the crimes he committed in WW2. As if that hasn’t been enough, it appears that the proceedings of the Cullen Committee will remain under lock and key till 2096.
There has been one recent development—albeit a small one. Two men attempted to break into a house; one of the owners had a shotgun, and he fired at them, killing one. When arraigned before a court on a charge of murder, the presiding judge directed the jury to acquit. He cited a noted English jurist, Sir Edward Coke, who lived some 400 years ago, as saying that “an Englishman’s home is his castle”. Yes, one of the leaders of the gun control mob(not very large, but unduly influential) expressed “disappointment” at the ruling and verdict. Still, it is a chink of light. What happens in the future is yet to be seen.
Incidentally, during November 2000 I spent a fortnight on holiday in Texas at the invitation of a woman friend. Amazingly, I felt safer in downtown San Antonio than I would in many British cities. I put it down to three factors, viz. (I) they still have the death penalty for murder – we pensioned off the hangman in 1965; (ii) after training and certification one can carry a concealed handgun – makes it dangerous for intending burglars or muggers; (iii) in Teas, and in large parts of the US, one enjoys the “means of grace” in the form of Christian schooling and Christian broadcasting – here in the UK faith schools are allowed, but secular humanists bleat about “indoctrination” of children, while Christian broadcasting is severely restricted, with even one complainer being apparently enough to shut it down.

By: Erin Hempfling

Erin Hempfling — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 20:10:00 +0000

Sounds like you could definitely write an essay defending this position, Bree — great research.

By: Isheet Ahn-Islam

Isheet Ahn-Islam — Wed, 09 Nov 2016 18:28:00 +0000

wow the potato is strong with you, the most violent states in the country are california, new york illinois, and DC, all have some of the most restrictive laws in the country, and are suprisingly full of “tolerant liberals”

By: Naomi Tepper

Naomi Tepper — Mon, 18 Jul 2016 20:52:00 +0000

In reply to Doug. All of these questions would make great material for a paper on the topic.

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 18 Jul 2016 02:33:00 +0000

Just some questions from an outsider.
Why are Americans afraid of their neighbor and so have to carry a weapon? Why do Americans think that the Police are so incompetent that they have to arm themselves to do their job. Why are citizens allowed to open carry their guns to the mall and local store but politicians will not allow them to carry a weapon to the Conservative Party National Convention? Why do Americans give criminals the right to carry weapons?