Question

Browse and read the article
Your response must demonstrate that you have read and understood the article.
Your response must also be substantive and explain why the article is useful for the a research essay.

The article is from nytimes.com called "Gun Control Explained". It was published on October 7th, 2015 by Richard Perez-Pena.

Answer 1

Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary.

(Answer) The article by Richard Perez-Pena explores the general knowledge and a few uncommon facts that surround gun-control. He talks about mental adjudication, the loopholes in the restrictions, gun-shows etc. He discusses how these restrictions do not really help with curbing the issue of mass shootings. The general tone of the article basically explores how someone determined to get a gun, will find a way to get a gun through the loopholes.

Pena goes on to illustrate the situation with state laws that ban assault rifles. He talks about how states that allow an individual to carry a gun, to carry it openly. Pena says that the authorities of these states are equally as divided as the general public when it comes to gun-control issues.

This article could surely help with certain aspects of research about the public and the laws that surround the issue of gun control. However, the main cause of this issue is the second amendment. Pena doesn’t really explore the implications and connotations of the amendment that has caused all of the raucous and debate in the first place.

The fact remains that the second amendment was released at a time when the government to protect the US from other rulers was still young. Also, the military and armada that the nation possessed weren’t as fortified as it is today. Furthermore, citizens did not have well-outlined laws and a judiciary system to protect them from forces that aimed to usurp their freedom. All this kept in mind, having a gun at the time might have been permissible.

Although, in this day and age, the United States has a well-formed democracy, laws, judiciary system, a militia and an armada at its disposal. The public also has access to services by officials like the police, who are allowed to carry weapons. This makes the gun nothing but a “killing machine” and not a necessity.

One might argue that even a knife is a killing machine. Considering that the knife serves other necessary purposes too, it is not merely a killing machine. Also, one can say that the gun is for self-protection. However, if there was gun-control, there would be no guns to seek protection from in the first place. Also, an assault by a knife or other weapons is easier to combat than a gun. One can run away or hit back. However, the gun is a difficult weapon to combat.

Such contemporary arguments need to be backed up by an overview of the history and the implications of the gun laws in America. Only then can the relevance of such laws be objectively analysed.