Comparative Editorials on Gun Control - Essay Example

June 2, Comparative Editorials on Gun Control Introduction There is an ongoing debate regarding the need for gun control in view of ever increasing violent incidents especially perpetuated against helpless children. The recent news of an apparent massacre of 27 people from Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut raised alarm levels to develop drastic measures that would abate casualties from indiscriminate firing of guns. The current paper aims to present two points of views on the issue of gun control to mitigate devastating effects of irresponsible use of guns through examining two editorial reports: one from the USA Today (Australian gun control holds lessons for U.S.) and the other published online in Denver Post (Gun rights and gun control aren't necessarily exclusive). The discourse would present a separate examination of each article’s arguments including supporting contentions. A concluding portion would then assess which editorial was deemed most effective. Editorial One: Australian gun control holds lessons for U.S. The editorial article entitled “Australian gun control holds lessons for U.S.” published online in the USA Today on December 18, 2012 proffered issues that apparently compared the measures taken by Australia in terms of gun control. As an editorial article, the author comes from the Editorial Board, but was not specifically identified. The article’s main thesis was despite sharing similarities between the United States and Australia in terms of having previously experienced violent deaths due to indiscriminate firing of guns, Australia’s gun control policy which was enforced after a 1996 shooting eventually solved the dilemma. According to the discourse, Australian law on gun control necessitated categorizing firearms into five distinct classifications, where “some of the deadliest assault-style weapons and large ammunition clips are now all but impossible for individuals to lawfully own. (Further), firearms are subject to a strict permitting process, and dealers are required to record sales, which are tracked by the national and territorial governments… (In addition,) the law encouraged people to sell their firearms back to the government, which purchased and destroyed about 700,000 of them” (Australian gun control holds lessons for U.S. pars. 4 & 5). Due to the passing of this law, the report disclosed that evident result was no violent gun-related incidents ever occurred. The author used logical arguments through the support of evidential historical records and citing credible findings that apparently revealed the effectiveness of gun control through the law enforced by Australia. However, to verify the details, one made a quick research on the veracity of the facts through a report entitled “Firearm related deaths in Australia, 1991 – 2001” (Mouzos and Rushforth). The report revealed that although there was a decline in the number of firearm related deaths of 521 in 1996, there were still 437 deaths in 1997, 327 in 1998, 353 in 199, 331 in 2000 and 333 in 2001 (Mouzos and Rushforth). The information therefore clearly negates the assertion that no gun-related incidents ever occurred after enforcement of the gun control law. Editorial Two: Gun rights and gun control aren't necessarily exclusive From the Denver Post, the editorial article entitled “Gun rights and gun control aren't necessarily exclusive” published online on September 23, 2012 was likewise written by an unnamed member of the editorial board. The main argument that the article was disclosing apparent preference of the American public through public opinion polls which disclose that “polls in recent years have consistently affirmed that Americans believe it's more important to protect the right to own guns than to enact gun control” (Gun rights and gun control aren't necessarily exclusive par. 6). The discourse likewise made mention of advocates for the right to bear and keep firearms pursuant to the Second Amendment, to wit: “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 1). Since the interests of the members of the editorial board are apparently skewed towards the best interests of Colorado, in general, the editorial article noted some alleged propositions for citizens of Colorado on their reported contentions for “banning high-capacity gun magazines doesn't threaten the right to bear arms… (and) “banning assault weapons” (Gun rights and gun control aren't necessarily exclusive par. 8) which partially find a recommended solution, in lieu of gun control. The author thereby used rhetorical elements that solicited support from logical arguments with the use of citing the Second Amendment as the justification for taking other courses of action, instead of targeting or proposing gun control. Likewise, by making readers aware that although there is a basis for enforcing continued support for the right to keep and bear arms through the Second Amendment, this does not, and should not preclude policy makers into developing more effective laws that could appropriately reduce firearms related deaths or injuries. Conclusion The comparative arguments shown from the two editorial articles therefore affirmed that proposing policies or enacting laws on gun control could actually solve or minimize the number of firearm related deaths. The solution to the pressing problem on addressing firearm related deaths therefore takes more than simply recommending a gun control law or policy. One therefore finds the arguments in the second editorial from the Denver Post more convincing and effective because it provided more valid and credible support through citing the Second Amendment as a crucial conceptual framework and aptly concluding that: “yes, it's important for elected officials to understand that Coloradans for the most part remain strong supporters of Second Amendment rights even in the wake of the mass shooting in Aurora. But that doesn't mean those same officials shouldn't take the lead in promoting sensible reforms that reduce the likelihood of such crimes — or at least the likelihood of their success” (Gun rights and gun control aren't necessarily exclusive par. 10). Overall, the editorial board of Denver Post asserts that policymakers should firmly exert appropriate and immediate efforts to design much needed reforms that would effectively minimize firearm related injuries and deaths on a more urgent and serious thrust. Works Cited "Australian gun control holds lessons for U.S." 18 December 2012. USA Today. 5 February 2013 . "Gun rights and gun control aren't necessarily exclusive." 23 September 2012. Denver Post. 5 February 2013 . Mouzos, Jenny and Catherine Rushforth. "Firearm related deaths in Australia, 1991-2001." November 2003. Australian Institute of Criminology. 5 February 2012 . "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution." n.d. guncite.com. 5 February 2013 . Read More