Controlling Guns Would Prevent Violent Crimes - Coursework Example

Gun Control Article Controlling Guns Would Prevent Violent Crimes Guns have been used for the control of crime for a long time and in history, people armed themselves in the response to the increased danger from the invaders, criminals, bandits, and abusive governments such as the case of the Civil War and American Revolution; the move has been considered both rational and normal until recently (LaRosa, 2002). The states in America that have passed laws concerning the carrying of guns, have seen most of the violent crimes reduce by a significant number; murder rate has fallen by 8.5%, the incidents of rapes have fallen by 5%, robbery has fallen by 3 percent, and aggravated assaults have fallen by around 7 percent. Texas is a good example of a state in which the control of guns has lead to drastic reduction in the number of crimes. Since the early 1990s, the crime rate has dropped by around 50 percent (LaRosa, 2002). Some bias exist in this article, there are incidences where the author agrees that guns control assist in the prevention of violent crimes and there other where the author totally disagrees. Some of the examples given are biased like the one on Washington, D.C. The author states that the murder rate has increased by 134% while the overall crime rate has reduced by around 2 percent. The politicians blame the Virginia’s less strict gun control laws for the murders witnessed in D.C. The author further states that Virginia Beach, the largest city in Virginia has the lowest rates of murder (LaRosa, 2002). The same passage discussed above is vague and does not provide full details. Other areas where the statements are vague are the example given on Texas State. Crime rate is said to have reduce significantly since the adoption of the concealed carry laws. The information provided only covers the overall decline and does not give much detail on how the concealed carry laws worked for the state. The source of the information is credible. The author provides an idea of how the gun control prevents the occurrence of violent crimes. It provides the history, arguments for and against gun control and examples concerning the topic. Rhetorical devices used are examples; examples are given throughout the article. There are fallacies in the article, “people who obey gun-control laws are less able to defend themselves against those who don’t obey those same laws” (LaRosa, 2002, par 17). The statement is a lie because those who obey the gun control laws can still be able to defend themselves. This is because they can obtain permits that legally allow them to carry guns. The individual who does not obey the gun control laws is even at greater risk of getting harmed. When lawlessness becomes the order of the day, the individual has very little he or she can do to defend him or herself. “On the surface, it seems logical to conclude that making guns more difficult to obtain will keep them from the hands of the criminals” (LaRosa, 2002, par 8). The author argument here is that it goes beyond the laws to prevent violent crimes linked with the use of the guns. Gun control alone does not merely prevent the emergence of violent crimes. The author utilizes moral reasoning in his arguments. He tries to establish the link between violent crimes, the guns and the people. The author tries to expose the vulnerability of the unarmed individual and attempts to show that the mere control of the guns does not provide a conclusive answer. Article 2 If Guns Control Was More Strictly Enforced Only Criminals Would Have Guns There is need to enact laws that ensure people live at peace; such laws include the enactment of strict gun control laws. The enactment of stronger gun control laws is said that it would decrease the rate of crime across the country. The main thing in having stronger gun control laws is that it will make it difficult for an individual to purchase a gun and thus only a few people will be in possession of them. Severe punishment is also included in these laws for the people who are found in the possession of these guns; less people will be in possession of them. The people will be afraid of being caught with the guns and as a consequence only a few people will be in possession of the guns. The present state allows the criminals and the mentally unstable persons to posses guns (Law Teacher, 2011). Bias exists in the article; the criminals are the only ones being implicated of causing harm to the population. There are other categories of people who can be danger when in possession of the guns; teenagers and those with mental instability are included in the category. The availability of the guns does not necessarily translate to the increase of criminal activities. There are no statistics available to back up the information provided by the author. The author fails to give evidence to the information provided. A statement like “Gun control is so much necessary in the today’s society since its one of the ways of controlling insecurities in the society” (Law Teacher, par 4) is a good statement but when the statistics lack to back up the claim, the information looks biased. The statement “so when the individuals are denied the access of these guns, the criminal rates will decrease in that they usually use these guns to threaten people’s life when stealing or even smuggling goods from their owners” (Law Teacher, 2011, par 4) is not conclusive and provides vague ideas on how to deal with criminal activities. Denying one the use and the accessibility of the gun does not necessarily mean the crime rates will decrease; there are other factors that play a role in the increase or the reduction of the crime rates. The source is credible to some extent. It misses one of the important components of a critical essay; enough support to the arguments or the claims provided. However, it highlights some of the important information concerning the gun control laws and the rates of crime. The relationship is well illustrated but there are some vague statements. Rhetorical devices used are examples; examples are given throughout the article. “If everybody is allowed the right to posses these guns, it will mean that there will be no need of the military and the police force … there will be so many criminal and deaths coming up” (Law Teacher, 2011). The argument emphasizes the need to have strict gun control laws in order to curb the rising criminal activities and insecurities. However, the argument is exaggerated because not everyone can possess the guns. Instead, there is need to emphasize proper licensing and use of the guns for those who wish to possess them. The police and the army cannot exhaustively protect the people. The author employs moral reasoning in his arguments; moral implication of the use of the gun by all people is provided by the author. The author asserts that it defeats logic if everyone possessed a gun because we have the military and the police forces in protection and maintaining of law and order respectively. “If everybody is allowed the right to posses these guns, it will mean that there will be no need of the military and the police force … there will be so many criminal and deaths coming up” (Law Teacher, 2011). Topic: Terrorism Article 1 Terrorism Is a Threat to the National Security According to Wood (2006), terrorism remains one of the pre-eminent threats to the United States national security and the security of the other nations abroad. With the ongoing progress in Iraq to counter terrorism, the threat of terrorism is set to diminish as the terrorists can be defeated and the United States get a foundation on which to fight terror (Wood, 2006). The Jihadist movement is fueled in many of the Muslim nations by the entrenched grievances such as the slow pace of economic, political and social change, corruption and injustice. The role of religion in the government is being scrutinized and thus adding to the urgency of the debate of the insurgents’ action and philosophies. Majority of the Muslims reject the extremism notion and the violent agendas of international jihadists (Wood, 2006). The author is biased towards the Muslim nations; the bias is not appropriate because corruption, slow growth of the social, economy and politics, and injustices are found in most of the third world nations and thus, such scenarios can perpetuate terrorism as the author argues. We live in a cosmopolitan world and Muslim is found almost anywhere. The author asserts that, “entrenched grievances such as corruption, injustice and the slow pace of economic, social and political change in many Muslim nations continue to fuel jihadist movement …” (Wood, 2006). The statement “… Muslims are becoming more politically aware and active … but the majority doesn’t lean toward extremism” (Wood, 2006) is vague. If the more of the Muslims are becoming politically aware and do not support extremism, then why does terrorism still pose a national security. It would have been appropriate if the political awareness corresponded with the decline in terrorism and a possible decline in the threat to national security. The source of the information is not credible. Most of the information provided by the author is based on assumptions and there are no true links of terrorism to the national security. Although the author provides information regarding the real situation in these countries, she does not provide concrete evidence that the activities are a risk to the national security. Rhetorical devices used are direct quotations from officials; the direct quotations from the officials are given throughout the article. Fallacies do exist in this article, the author states the following in two different positions in the article “another sign of improvement in the country is the drastic increase in Sunni participation in the political process … Sunni Arabs form the core of the insurgency in Iraq” (Wood, 2006). The statements are contradicting because one talks of the drastic changes and the other talks of a dire situation involving the same people in Iraq. “Terrorism remains the pre-eminent threat to U.S. national security and interests abroad” (Wood, 2006). The author argues that terrorism remains a big threat to the United States national security and the interests of other countries. The argument leans on side, the United States; that is, its national security and maybe the interests of other nations. Thus, the argument is not valid. The author uses moral reasoning in his arguments, "Indeed, as people of all backgrounds endorse democratic principles of freedom, equality and the rule of law, they will be able to couple these principles with their religious beliefs, whatever they may be, to build better futures for their communities" (Wood, 2006) The author emphasizes the need of the community and individual role in the fight against terrorism. Article 2 Terrorism Cannot Pose Any Threat to National Security Terrorism is a very big issue especially in the west due to the September 11 attacks. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon largely due to the resulting conflict of the Afghanistan and the Iraq and the recent attacks on the west. The definition of terrorism, security and the nature of terrorism varies and it has become difficult to ascertain whether terrorism is indeed a threat to national security (Wilson, 2010). The measures taken by the Western world distinguish terrorism to be present and a real threat to the national security. Examples include the detentions in Guantanamo Bay and the anti-terror laws in the United Kingdom. Terrorism is a threat to national security and it may not be a possible threat to the national security in comparison to the more pressing issues like national disasters (Wilson, 2010). The article lacks bias because the author vividly explains every aspect of the topic in discussion. The author provides the different definitions of terrorism and national security and relates them to the possibilities of terrorism being a national security threat. The statement, “This focus on traditional military capability and security would suggest the terrorism is perhaps not as big a threat to the state as actors such as the media would have us believe” (Wilson, 2010) is vague. The statement does not clearly define what the media has made us believe about terrorism. The media can argue on both sides of terrorism, thus, clarification from the author on how the media affects terrorism would have been appropriate. The source of the information is credible. The author provides relevant examples on each issue raised in the article. The author approaches the topic step by step and each step is well explained and it is related to the topic of the article. Throughout the article, the author revisits the theme of the article “does terrorism pose a real threat to security” (Wilson, 2010). Rhetorical devices used are examples and definitions; definitions and examples are given throughout the article. The author presents the information in the best way possible without relying on fallacies. The author exhaustively utilizes information from various sources to come up with his arguments. From those sources, the author makes a conclusive argument on the subject matter. The author argues that “… terrorism is a threat to the security of some actors more than others, dependent on their views, vulnerability, concerns and policies” (Wilson, 2010). In other words, the author states that terrorism is not a threat to national security and if it is, it is only to a few people who perceive it to be. The argument is valid because we have contradicting statements on terrorism being a threat to national security. The author uses moral reasoning; he argues that there are larger threats than the threat of terrorism, “evidently there are greater threats to security than terrorism, especially if you live in a Third World nation” (Wilson, 2010). References LaRosa, B. D. (2002). Can gun control reduce crime? Retrieved from http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp Law Teacher. (2011). American gun control. Retrieved from http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/essays/american-gun-control.php Wilson, A. (2010). Does terrorism pose a real threat to security? Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/?p=5524 Wood, S. (2006, February 28). Terrorism biggest threat to national security, officials say. American Forces Press Service, pp1. Read More