James Q Wilson was an American political scientist who made contribution to making urban politics, policing and crime understandable. Wilson is also known as the author of many essays, with Just Take Their Guns Away being one of them. In this essay Wilson claims and explains why it is not necessary to make more gun laws, but instead, people who do not have the right to possess one should be punished by confiscating their guns away. In the essay Just Take Away Their Guns by James Q, Wilson, Wilson argues that guns aren’t the main source of crimes, but rather people are. As he quotes the National Rifle Association, “. . . ‘guns don’t kill, people kill’. . .” (Wilson pg #127) , he makes it clear to the audience that he believes that peoples who
…show more content…
. .” (Wilson pg. # 127), meaning that tougher gun control, should be enforced. But if tougher gun control should be enforced, then that dismantles his whole argument on not creating anymore tougher laws. The more people carry guns, the more violence escalades. Wilson agrees with the statement “some people carry them on the streets, others will want to carry them to protect themselves-and an urban race will be underway.” (Wilson pg. # 128)- Wilson statement does not make sense because the only way to solve this “urban race . . . underway” is to make it “draconian” and politically possible. Despite the trainings officers are given, it is morally and ethically wrong for one to assume that one is a criminal due to his appearance. The Second Amendment reads “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms” not the right of the people to keep and bear …show more content…
He makes many assumptions that all illegal carriers, are illegal users, “it should be to reduce to the number of people who carry guns unlawfully.” (Wilson pg. 126) There could be a person who unlawfully carries a gun but uses it in a self-defense situation but also have someone who lawfully carries and use it illegally. Wilson further on assumes that all law-abiding citizens are in favor of guns as he states that “our goal should not be the disarming of law-abiding citizens.” (Wilson pg. 126) There are many polls being created to figure out how many of the United States citizens are actually in favor of the “. . . still tougher gun control . . .” According to pollingreports.com, Quinnipiac University, Fifty- Four percent of citizens supports and Forty- Two percent oppose tougher gun control. Throughout the essay the article depicts one sided evidence, this point is clearly portrayed when the author states that, “Moreover the rate of fatal gun accidents has been declining while the level of gun ownership has been rising.” This is inaccurate because these both work hand-in-hand, if the rate of gun ownership is rising the amount of gun accidents will also sky rocket, due to illegal confiscation of these weapons by criminals. The increase of gun ownership does not put a limitation on the malicious acts that criminals commit. Criminals will be criminals despite the circumstance. Nevertheless, the
. .” (Wilson pg. # 127), meaning that tougher gun control, should be enforced. But if tougher gun control should be enforced, then that dismantles his whole argument on not creating anymore tougher laws. The more people carry guns, the more violence escalades. Wilson agrees with the statement “some people carry them on the streets, others will want to carry them to protect themselves-and an urban race will be underway.” (Wilson pg. # 128)- Wilson statement does not make sense because the only way to solve this “urban race . . . underway” is to make it “draconian” and politically possible. Despite the trainings officers are given, it is morally and ethically wrong for one to assume that one is a criminal due to his appearance. The Second Amendment reads “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms” not the right of the people to keep and bear …show more content…
He makes many assumptions that all illegal carriers, are illegal users, “it should be to reduce to the number of people who carry guns unlawfully.” (Wilson pg. 126) There could be a person who unlawfully carries a gun but uses it in a self-defense situation but also have someone who lawfully carries and use it illegally. Wilson further on assumes that all law-abiding citizens are in favor of guns as he states that “our goal should not be the disarming of law-abiding citizens.” (Wilson pg. 126) There are many polls being created to figure out how many of the United States citizens are actually in favor of the “. . . still tougher gun control . . .” According to pollingreports.com, Quinnipiac University, Fifty- Four percent of citizens supports and Forty- Two percent oppose tougher gun control. Throughout the essay the article depicts one sided evidence, this point is clearly portrayed when the author states that, “Moreover the rate of fatal gun accidents has been declining while the level of gun ownership has been rising.” This is inaccurate because these both work hand-in-hand, if the rate of gun ownership is rising the amount of gun accidents will also sky rocket, due to illegal confiscation of these weapons by criminals. The increase of gun ownership does not put a limitation on the malicious acts that criminals commit. Criminals will be criminals despite the circumstance. Nevertheless, the