A commonly discussed issue today is gun laws. Should they be more strict? Will the ban of assault rifles end terrorist attacks and other shootings in the United States? The article by Chris W. Cox, Gun Laws Don't Deter Terrorists: Opposing View, discusses the view that more gun control will not stop terrorists. Cox's intended audience is people who believe that more gun control will end gun violence. Chris W. Cox uses supporting evidence such as history from the Orlando shooting, the San Bernardino terrorist attack, and the attacks in Paris to establish his credibility and make his argument more effective. The San Bernardino and Paris examples both serve as proof that strict gun control and bans on assault rifles will not end terrorist attacks.
While I believe that purchasing guns should have a process that requires a license, I agree with Chris W. Cox's argument that ultimately banning assault rifles will not end violent attacks. Just as making marijuana illegal does not prevent people from possessing it, making guns illegal will not prevent these attackers from acquiring guns. Additionally, I agree with Cox's argument that we need to end terrorism, "not destroy the right of law-abiding Americans to defend ourselves." Attackers in shootings do not care about following the laws, therefore making guns illegal would take guns away from the Americans who follow the laws, but not from the attackers.
Cox's argument is weakened when he states, "We don't need false promises. We need real leadership," because he does not provide support of how or why leadership would help. Despite the lack of support for the argument that leadership will be more beneficial than gun laws, I believe that he provides enough evidence of why gun laws will not work in order to make the argument effective.
No comments:
Post a Comment