My Perspective: Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns by Molly Ivins
The argumentative essay establishes that the author believes guns are more deadly than knives because "knives don't ricochet." Ivins' backs her argument using the Second Amendment. She adds that some citizens "are not a part of a well-regulated militia." Therefore, they don't need one. I agree with the author 14-year-old boys don't need a gun. A gun in their hands is destructive and life-altering. The author notes, the only persons who should hold a gun are armed forces. However, I disagree. There is no secret that there can be defence forces who misuse their weapons like people in society. Though, the author suggests that the US uses gun restrictions methods like England. She still feels that individuals think "they have the power to kill." For that reason, she argues for guns banishment and; individuals to get a dog.
Overall, I can't fully agree with the author about getting rid of guns. Yes, her reasons are clear. However, she was unsuccessful in persuading me on why a knife or a dog is better. Wouldn't the bullet hit you before you can use the knife? And why do individuals think dogs can't die while trying to protect you? Since it is unlikely to ban knives, I highly doubt guns would be. Individuals die from knife violence the same way they die from gun violence.
Comments
Post a Comment