Kurt Eichenwald enters into an already inflamed debate about gun control in the United States. He reports on the increasing cases of violence marked by indiscriminate shooting of innocent Americans. Such violent acts have been witnessed in schools and movie theatres. Therefore, it has necessitated the reaction of President Obama has been at the forefront and declared that he would do something, but then later being shut down in the House of Representatives. In his essay, Kurt masks his claims under moderation, but really he jumps into the debate with a premise as far left as one can really get.
He says, “ O. K., I’ll agree. Let’s not talk about policy when it comes to Sandy Hook.” He knew that this was a very political polarizing issue and wants his argument to be logical and methodical rather than emotional and reactionary. As he skips talk on this though, he brings up a number of anecdotes about other such mass shooting on the US. He names around a dozen and then says that we could talk about “ any of the senseless mass murders that have left behind piles of maimed and murdered.” Throughout the essay he makes claims that are mostly supported by pathos, and not ethos or logos.
He goes to the heart of the issue that is allowing for people to own guns or the second amendment. There is much debate on how this could be interpreted. He brings up the valid point that this clause was written 200 years ago and we as a sovereign people capable of self-governance do not need to be prevented from passing practical policy measures simply because of something that is not only vague and open to interpretation but was written 200 years ago.
He points out that most of the mass murders committed by guns were done through the aid of weapons that were legally purchased. His central tenet is that our system is broken, and the only way to fix it, is to start from the beginning with a question of whether or not Americans should be constitutionally allowed to own such tools of mass destruction.
I would like to begin by concurring with this writer that gun possession has of course become a very contentious issue in USA today. He is right for reporting that this right has been really abused on many occasions.
Even if the constitution grants people right to possess guns, many people have not used these fire arms for the right purpose. They have used it to cause more harm than good. As Kurt exclaims, many Americans have been maimed and killed indiscriminately. This implies that the guns have been used to compromise national security. I would like to point out that it is not justified for anyone to abuse the use of these ammunitions. Instead, they should be used for the right purpose.
However, while I agree with him that more should be done, I believe that in suggesting that this amendment be repealed he is adding more polarization to an issue already charged. Gun control is an issue with a powerful lobby of support.
I would like to suggest that the country needs right now is not more charged rhetoric, but middle ground on the issue. It is possible to agree with someone’s premise but disagree with his approach that he or she takes. Like other charged issues such as abortion, it is unlikely that either side of the issue will ever see eye to eye on the issue. Guns represent large aspect of culture in the United States. Rather than invoking a change to the Constitution, which is not only dramatic, but basically politically impossible given the current political climate, what Eichenwald could have done, is figure out what was stagnating in Washington in terms of policy reform and then suggested how this obstacle could be overcome. The gun lobby, not the second amendment is what is standing in the way of lawmakers who want to restrict gun use from gaining ground.
In conclusion, I would like to agree with Kurt for writing such an insightful article. He gives a right discussion about the gun issue which has really polarized the American society. As he observes, guns are very important weapons because they are used in self defense. However, it is very unfortunate that many gun holders have taken advantage of their privilege to destabilize the country’s peace. It is for this reason that I rally behind him. He gives a candid argument on this emotive matter. Even if guns are meant for safeguarding individual security, it has become a weapon of aggression. The most saddening part is that it can even be accessed by school-going children who use it to shoot their colleagues. Thus, I support President Obama for proposing stricter gun laws. This is the only way through which the possession and use of these faire arms can be regulated. It will make people use them responsibly.
Our writers will create one from scratch for
Snyder, J: Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control. Accurate Press, St. Louis, 2001: pp. i-ii