Topic: Against Guns
General Purpose: To Argue
Specific Purpose: Argument to prevent guns
ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED SOLUTION PAPERS
Thesis: There have been so much violence and misuse of the guns in the recent past and comparing the people who could have been saved with the ban on the guns and how many are saved during the actual incidences of gun misuse, it is vital to ban guns (Roberts, n.p). the three points of discussion will be I., Increase in homicide cases II., Public participation III., Controversy about these two guns. Therefore, it is vital to creating an argument that supports a gun ban against legalization of the same as it is today in America.
[Attention Getter] The more of guns among citizens the more of deaths it may cause.
There have been different perspective against banning or control of the guns in the United States, but it does increase homicide cases.
The public supports the ban.
Regarding the public support and the deaths that have increased in the recent past, the ban is credible right now.
[Controversy/Justify Topic] Some scholars argue that there has been a lot of instances where people who are using guns but are not security officials have been able to come to the rescue of the victims of terrorism and other homicide violence (Alcorn, 124).
[Credibility] However, today gun laws are becoming flexible regarding the person who can hold them and how he can use them appropriately (Anestis, 107).
[Preview/Thesis Statement] For these reasons, and others, I will argue that banning guns helps the country than not banning guns.
More homicide cases increase with an increase in ownership of guns.
The public supports the ban.
Controversy against the public support and the homicide cases will be relevant to convince the policymakers to be able to make sure that the number of deaths as a result of deaths.
Transition: Transition: I have explained in my argument about the importance of gun ban and how not doing so has increased deaths in the country.
[First Constructive Argument] More Guns means more Homicide cases as citizens have access to tools they can use to perpetuate the same.
It is important to note that more guns equate to more homicide incidences in America. i. If fewer people own fewer guns, then the probability of someone killing his colleague of an enemy is low compared to when there are lots of guns among citizens (Roberts, n.p).
ii. This is not true as the case seen in America regarding a high number of deaths reported as a result of not banning the ownership of the guns.
Increase in Suicide Cases because of Lack of Gun Ban Suicide is also directly proportionally related to the increase in the number of guns among citizens.
A person who owns a gun is more likely to commit suicide compared to the one that does not have the same (Alcorn, 126). Some scholars have argued that suicide is a national event and that a person needs to plan and a date that he is going to take his own life. However, this is not true (Anestis, 107).
Most massacres are perpetrated with Legal Firearms.
The reason that there should be a ban on firearms is that most of the massacres that take place to happen with the use of legal firearms.
The use of AR assault rifle has been one of the most used rifles in most of the mass shootings in America (Galea, n.p). This means that putting a ban on the sale of this rifle to the people would really help the country to reduce the cases of mass shootings in the United States.
However, there has been much talk on the need for the public to have these firearms so that they can be able to fight terrorists in case they strike.
Transition: Increase in the ownership of guns increases deaths as people have weapons that they can use to perpetuate the heinous crimes. Next, I will discuss the public support of the ban.
[Second Constructive Argument] The Public Supports the Ban
It is important to note that a big percentage of the public does support the issue of banning guns among the public.
This means that people are in support of not giving more guns to the public as opposed to the sentiments that are being given out by the public about Americans “supporting” gun legalization (Galea, n.p). However, there are some people who support republican sentiments about putting less control over the guns in the country.
Not Every person means well when Acquiring Guns
Not Every person means well when Acquiring Guns i. Guns are not things that can be used as sport in the country as the country does not know who they are advancing the guns to (Galea, n.p).
As much as there are instances where hunting and sports shooting are fun and legal in the United States, they do not make sense when they are leading to a lot of deaths. Scholars also stress the fact that these events are important to the American people (Roberts, n.p). Therefore, it is important for the public to make sure that they come up with the policies that will improve the lives of Americans and not the ones that lead to increases in deaths.
[Refutation] Controversy that more guns save lives
[Turn the Tables] There has been an argument that when there are a lot of guns or when almost everyone owns up a gun, then the country is expected to see less violence because people fear the war that might ensue in the process.
This means that with more guns, people who have suicidal thoughts are most likely to commit suicide using guns than the ones that do not have access to the same.
The states that have fewer guns among her citizens have reported fewer cases of homicide violence compared to the ones that have a higher number of guns in the market (Alcorn, 125).
[Minimizing] Studies show that suicide is a rational decision that happens within a moment and if someone has a death threatening tool, then he can take his own life in a second. Taking a case of Boston which has one of the high rates of ownership of guns, there are a lot of suicide cases in this state (Follman et al, n.p).
This means that people who acquire guns legally are the ones using them wrongly or their families use these guns to perpetrate heinous acts in the country (Follman et al, n.p).
Furthermore, it is not guaranteed that if everyone is armed with the firearms the causalities in a terrorist incidence would reduce.
[Denial] However, there has been much talk on the need for the public to have these firearms so that they can be able to fight terrorists in case they strike.
This according to the pro-gun legalization and public ownership of guns, this could help to reduce the impact of guns massacre in case of a mass shooting or a terrorist attack.
[Impact] More guns in the market does not support does not put in mind the number of deaths that come with the same. A case of reduction of the number of homicide rates when Australia did ban the guns in the country and achieve the same. Most of the people who intervene in the process of mass shooting or a terrorist attack could cause more damage than help as they do not know who the mass shooters or terrorists.
Translation: Therefore, it is important to ban guns or control to a bigger extends the supply of guns to the market to reduce the number of homicides incidences