Thompson, a retired physician and a strong advocate for gun rights, made many strong arguments that validated gun usage for the law-abiding citizen. Specifically, Thompson is a psychiatrist, and has written more about the psychological fear of guns and how much of it is irrational. In this essay, Thompson addressed many misconceptions about crime rate that were skewed by uncontrolled studies. The fact that the medical field skewed results of published studies for compensation from the government Is what makes Thompson so passionate about this subject, as he is a retired physician herself.
As these statistics are debunked in the article, you begin to see that guns are most often a benefit to those using self-defense rather than to criminals, who will inevitably get their hands on a gun anyways. Another study, controlled and designed well, and described as almost indisputable shows evidence that crime rates decreased in areas overtime where concealed carry was legal. I found the study at University of Chicago website and found that the reference was valid in its description. The study was highly descriptive and explanatory in procedures and categorization of different kinds of assaults.
I found the results to be convincing. Though I am not as radically driven as either of these authors (l wish to neither outlaw handguns or reduce restrictions on them), I am more inclined to side with Thompson on this issue. Thompson refers to factual data shown to be very accurate. These pieces of data are based on true occurrences and backed up by logic. Nan Deseed grew up In Los Angles and mostly writes about ecology. Ecology is the study of organisms and their relationship with the environment; this may give Deseed some credentials and an understanding to write on social problems such as these.
Dakar immediately confronts the idea that gun advocates have that only “criminals” kill people. With this, she proceeds to bring up instances In which husbands kill their wives, or children find their parents’ handgun and accidentally shoot themselves. By bringing up these points, she discredits the idea that everyone who kills Is a criminal. She also addresses the costs that will be laid on America by outlawing handguns. She uses an appeal to pathos by saying that Hess costs will “be far less than the costs?in money and in sorrow?that results from death due to handguns. While this may be partially true, she neglects to address the effect that such legislation would have on the gun industry. Ducat’s writing provides scarce statistics and mostly uses logical reasoning to support her opinions. This Is Important because some of her logic Is flawed. She asserts that, “If the sale of guns is outlawed, guns wont be available, and fewer criminals will have guns… [thus] there is every reason to believe that violent crime will decline. Though this seems that the conclusion logically follows, she disregards one important premise.
In order for this conclusion to be true, one must assume that criminals will never have access to guns, under any circumstances. This Is simply not true. As we nave seen In ten past, wilt n ten Taller AT Ronald Reggae’s war on Drugs, Illegal activity can easily be kept under the radar with the aid of public officials with security clearances. There over one hundred cases involving smuggling and bribery; such corruptions within our government have fueled the drug cartels that are booming ND out of control. If guns are outlawed, the same thing is likely to happen.
The demand for guns will become greater, and the only provider of these guns will be illegal distributors, who will in turn, Jack up gun prices. Not only will this destroy the entire gun industry, but it will also cause an increase in revenue for illegal activities that will inevitably result through anti-gun legislation. To partially side with Deseed, I think that Americans should be limited to the types of guns that they may purchase for the use of self-defense. Handguns are reliable weapons that will not cause too such damage in the wrong hands.
However, automatic and semiautomatic weapons that can cause harm to a large amount of people in a short amount of time would be of no use to an average citizen, and therefore, should be outlawed. Security clearance and drug testing should also be done to ensure that we are not equipping incompetent people with fatal weapons. Unless we can be absolutely sure that passing anti-gun legislation will decrease the amount of crime in America, I think it would be a foolish decision to pass it, as we have seen in the ineffectiveness and backfiring of similar legislation in the past.