Over the past ten years, there has been a significant number of mass- shooting in the United States. After the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut at an elementary school, Obama has declared as full-blown war against guns. The administration has developing a bill that regulates certain guns and accessories as well as requires every gun owner in America to register their firearms. With mass shootings occurring frequently the past four years, would it benefit or hurt the law-abiding citizens to strengthen regulations on firearms?
Guns are the main choice for individuals looking to do mass harm upon a group of innocent civilians. Because of this, the Democratic Party has decided to pour all their resources into getting rid of guns. If there are no guns for people to use, then how are they going to commit these acts of homicide? In an ABC News article it stated, “Fifty-three percent in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll view Obama’s gun control plan favorably, 41 percent unfavorably”. In ABC’s poll, the majority of people polled stated that they want Obama’s gun bill to be put in order. The statistics change on a daily basis due to the on-going debate. “Majorities from 65 to 88 percent favored background checks at gun shows and on ammunition purchases, creating a federal database to track gun sales and banning high-capacity magazines. That included, in each case, majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike” (ABCNews). The bill focuses on making background checks mandatory for anybody looking to purchase a firearm and limiting magazine capacity to less than ten rounds. The background checks are one of the main points of focus because the past individuals, whom which proceed to massacre groups of people, have been deemed mentally ill in one form or another. ABC news uses the statistics to appeal to the readers’ logos. By stating that a high percentage of the population, including republicans which are known to be extremely pro-gun, ABC does succeed in convincing people that more gun control laws are the popular idea, which in turn brings more people to believe it.
Allen Rostron stated in an article about the Virginia Tech shooting, “…A student at Virginia Tech used two pistols to murder thirty-two people in the deadliest shooting spree in American history”. Because of this incident, handguns are also incorporated into the bill. This is the first step in getting all guns out of the hands of sick people looking to do harm and make a name for themselves, even though it will forever be a name with hate connected to it. Rostron chooses this graphic wording to affect the readers’ pathos and get the individual to feel sorrowful for the people lost in the tragedy. It also touches on the individuals pathos making them feel that if the student was not able to acquire the firearms, this wouldn’t have happened. These techniques work in persuading people to think that by getting rid of as many firearms as possible will create a friendlier society with little violence. As well as the second amendment does not give citizens the right to bear arms; it is only issued for states to have a militia. Guns should only be in the hands of the National Guard and trained individuals who are paid to protect the citizens. People do not need firearms to protect themselves; it should be left up to the local police departments and military to keep the people safe and unharmed. If there were fewer guns in the hands of non-military/police personnel, there would be less violence and killing in the streets and mass shooting will be prevented (Rostron). Sometimes measures like this are too extreme to persuade the American people into believing them which makes the government and democratic individuals look for more of a neutral ground that is not as radical and easier to follow.
Unlike the far-left liberals, most individuals believe that the second amendment is important to keeping the constitution alive, but something needs