Please give feedback or help me correct errors, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks
| In the article "Just Take Away Their Guns," by James Q. Wilson, he quickly gets to the point of gun control in his opening paragraph. The reader can quickly understand his essay is bout gun rights and gun ownership. James' thesis states banning illegal gun use will not affect the use of illegal guns. Wilson's tone is very candid and shows his dedication to this topic. His tone reflects on how seriously he takes this argument and how passionate he feels. James uses many statistics, testimonies, and facts to support his views.
James uses the argument restricting the purchase of guns or ammo will have little or no effect on criminals who illegally own guns. James argues that criminals have their ways around gun laws such as stealing or illegally purchasing them. James then continues to add if guns and ammo are restricted lawful citizens will not have a means to protect themselves. Wilson uses a testimony from a criminologist Gary Kleck, stating firearms used in self-defense significantly outweighs the use of guns for illegal activities.
According to Wilson, police must take further action to protect the public by reducing the amount of illegal weapons, rather than take the weapons away from lawful citizens. Wilson again uses testimony from Mark More, arguing the public reports more illegal guns than police officers do find on daily patrols. James feels police need improved instructions to assess more accurately when a person is carrying a weapon and when to apply reasonable suspicion and probable cause. He feels this would aid in legally searching the person without conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. Wilson also believes police need to know where people on parole and probation are to check regularly if they own an illegal firearm.
Wilson uses the counterargument "guns don't kill people, people kill people," a statement from the National Rifle Association. The NRA also claims if the jail sentences and punishment for these crimes was to be increased, the criminals would be less likely to commit these crimes. James feels this is not true because he feels many criminals carry weapons to protect themselves from other rival criminals. James also points out; if a jail sentence for illegally carrying a firearm was to be increased, the judge may not enforce the charges, possibly drop them for a plea deal.
The writer also talks about how many people think guns are not safe, and with the rising number of people owning guns, the number of firearm injuries will increase. James adds the number of firearms has increased, while the number of injuries has gone down. James then makes a statement of the position of others who agree with gun control claiming, "Your government, having failed to protect your person and your property from criminal assault, now intends to deprive you of the opportunity to protect yourself."
Overall, I feel James made a sound argument, and used persuasion to help the reader look at his views. He did an excellent job identifying his arguments and supporting them with, facts, statistics, logic, and testimonies from reliable sources. I also feel Wilson did a good job covering the counterarguments of this topic. James also used appropriate statistics, facts, and testimonies, which aided his argument. I felt the author was defiant about the government trying to take away peoples gun rights. The only argument I feel he should have considered is if someone is going to hurt another or commit a crime, they could use most daily and household items as harmful weapon.
I personally feel that in today's society most people are going to do what they want regardless of laws and the consequences of these actions. I do feel our right to protect ourselves is very important to take into consideration when gun laws passed. However, I do not feel violence solves anything, and in many situations will only make the outcome worse.