Do Guns Provide Safety and at What Cost - Essay Example

Essay, English Topic: Rhetorical Analysis Essay Guns have never been used for peaceful purposes and the pages of human history are daubed in the bloodshed of gunshots. Increasing violence amongst the juveniles, and the series of killings in the schools, bas brought forth ugly face of the gun culture. In the article Do Guns Provide Safety? At What Cost? Puneet Narang and others, discuss the dangers posed by gun culture and how the threat of guns has the bearing on common citizens, besides creating challenging issues before the nation. The authors have made evidenced reporting how guns, instead of providing safety for the people and their families, have increased the risk of death or injury, besides creating emotional turmoil and disabilities. This issue has bearing on the tax rates and insurance premium. Gun violence regulation has become a national problem, according to the authors. Besides providing facts and figures the article employs resilient emotional and ethical appeals to stall the adverse effects of the gun culture to create awareness amongst the administrators and the people. Even though the authors are unable to give concrete solution to check the violence whose origin is gun culture, they support the measures initiated by the government that now shows earnestness to get at the issue. In this article, the authors have tried to articulate the legal aspect relating to the possession of a gun by the common citizen. The provisions of Constitution have been brought into discussion by the authors and yet their argument is like the double-edged sword and they find it difficult to take a definite stand for or against the gun culture. They quote the Second Amendment to the Constitution which states that “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". A debate is initiated currently in the country whether the citizens have the right to own a gun or not. The next issues are somewhat like the argument of ‘whether egg first or hen first’. Whether guns diminish criminal activity or they provide impetus to the violent trend? The authors are non-committal and take a neutral stand. Since the debate is about the constitutional rights of the American citizens they are the intended audience but this problem has international ramifications as such it demands the attention of the political leaders of countries all over the world and the people. The authors provide relevant statistics, facts and figures with supporting explanations to enable the readers to understand the seriousness of the problem of gun culture. According to them it is not merely a law and order problem and it has entered into the vitals of the societal structure. The authors also use rhetoric appeal to emotions and ethics of the people. They have highlighted how serious the consequences of gun culture by giving an elaborate description of the scenario of deaths due to fire-arm related violence, high rate of suicides, accidental injury, homicide, shooting by intruders, stress-related shootings with an intention to end life etc. More danger lurks from within the domestic environment than from intruders, the authors argue. The authors use operative ethos all through the article. The sources cited are authentic and reliable assumptions and conclusions regarding damage that is being caused to social harmony can be estimated. To authenticate the grim scenario they quote the Kentucky Violent Death Reporting System (http://www.kvdrs.uky.edu) which indicates that there were 541 gun-violence deaths in Kentucky during 2005. Their observation that “many of these shootings are impulsive acts; pre-existing psychopathology is not a consistently present cause”, is highly relevant and serves as the warning to those in charge of administering gun control measures. They pose the question ‘do guns make others safe?” and rightly provide the answer in the negative by explaining the alarming scenario, once again proving their assertions with relevant statistics collected by Centre for Disease Control and from Children’s Defense Fund with the National Center for Health Statistics. They point out the lacuna and problems in the proper implementation of Child Access Prevention laws related to firearms. Ethos is an important segment in an essay and using it with purpose to authenticate the statements convinces the readers about the authenticity of the facts and figures and convincingly proves the gravity of the situation arising out of the rapid spread of gun culture. The authors explain in detail the psychological damage and the emotional pain involved as a result of deaths due to shootings and when such actions are impulsive and done at the spur of the moment, the resultant grief to the members of the family is all the more. The authors give a vivid picture of the effect of gun-related violence on the society and the health care system. Their emphasis is on the psychological trauma of survivors and the related sociological maladjustments. Peace in the community is disturbed and people feel generally threatened, even long after the incidents take place. The authors use effective logos, while providing the broader picture of the gun-related violence and how it has affected and altered the history of the nations with the assassination of the famous people, including many presidents. To emphasize the seriousness of the problem the authors make the mention of the sniper attacks in the Washington D.C. area during 2002 and the mass shootings of 2009 at Fort Hood, Texas. By providing statistics, the authors are able to highlight the deep-rooted malady of gun culture that has seized the nation from all ends and their persuasion will create deep imprints in the minds of the readers and pose the question, what next? The authors are able to establish logos well, that demand serious consideration of the people and the concerned administrators. Pathos is used convincingly and skilfully in the essay by providing facts and figures. If gun-culture is considered as a coin the authors toss it often to effectively convey their apprehensions. On the one side they paint the picture of enormous loss of life and emotional turmoil caused in societal terms. On the other side, the huge burden devolved on the health care system of the nation is highlighted. The terms like “death”, “injury”, “endanger”, “emotional turmoil”, “suicide”, “accidental injury”, “homicide”, “domestic violence”, are used and the picture created out of their use makes the readers numb with fear and the consequences that are ahead of them. But the authors are unable to give any concrete solution to control the gun culture but they cannot be faulted on this count. The problem is so complicated, besides being a constitutional issue, relating to the legal rights of the people and their freedom to possess a gun for self-protection. The important issue is that the guns purchased for self-protection can also be used for destructive acts and no law and no authority can keep an eternal vigil as to how a human being will react in a particular situation. The authors know that they have on their side, besides the American audience, the world audience and the top hierarchy of many countries, who are seriously worried about the damaging consequences of gun culture and are groping for solutions. They know that in some countries the problem is serious and in America it is extra-serious and hence they turn their urgent attention on this country. They cite creditable sources and have presented statistics compiled from reliable agencies and have succeeded in building the ethos. They are seriously concerned about the societal suffering and worried about the helplessness of the government to take resolute steps. To an extent they consider it to be the lack of political will and to some extent it is about the legal hurdle. But they are unable to give a concrete solution and perhaps no author ever will be able to give. Even though they have not hinted it directly, they are driving the issue to the point of emphasizing that what is required is not only gun control, but mind control. Unless the human beings are willing to change, and mend their attitudes, to think of any tangible solution is impossibility. From the social aspects the authors turn their attention on the issue of burden on the national exchequer, which in the final analysis, will affect the taxpayer citizens of the country. Even most of the people know it is a serious issue, the statistics presented by the authors cause bewilderment in the minds of the readers. Of the many examples, three of them are worth the attention of the readers. 1) The overall economic cost due to gunshot injuries in America, including healthcare, disability, unemployment, and other intangibles is about $100 billion in the year 2005.At a major Kentucky trauma center, medical care for gunshot victims in 2008 cost over $18 million, and charges for those needing admission averaged $43,000 per patient. In Louisville, Kentucky, expenses for the uninsured gun-injury victims alone exceeded the allotment of moneys allocated for all indigent care medical costs for the entire community. Death has a lower monetary burden on the state, but disability expenses cause concern on account of the recurring expenses involved in the treatment. Conclusion In conclusion, the authors make an ardent submission that re-evaluation of gun regulation with the constitutional framework is ought to be considered. The word ‘ought’ used by the authors is pointer as to how helpless they feel confronting the powerful political lobby which is not serious about the issue, except issuing press statements for and against the gun control measures. One can understand the directionless and destination less element in the arguments of the author but they have succeeded in putting forth before the readers the grim scenario of gun related violence. Read More