Rhetorical Analysis Of Just Take Away Their Guns By James Wilson

Improved Essays
Surname 1 Author

Tutor

Course

Date

Frisking

The essay “Just Take Away Their Guns” has been written by James Q. Wilson. The essay tends to highlight the political and social concerns that are associated with the carrying of a gun. The author claims that there is no need of civilians carrying a gun since it is the responsibility of law and order unit to keep security of citizens. He argues that, in case civilians are involved in the act of carrying guns, then it makes no difference amid them and criminals. Although the author’s argument that individuals need guns in order to defend themselves seems convincing, he does not offer sufficient evidence to persuade the audience that police frisks will help in resolving the problem of gun violence
…show more content…
The frisking argument provided by the author tends to focus almost exclusively on its legality, but fails to provide an instance where similar policies have successfully been applied to resolve the issue at hand or to decrease the number of illegal guns that existed in a certain region. Also, Wilson fails to provide reasons why he supports the idea of frisking and why it will work. Indicating how the alternative works is not sufficient enough to convince the audience to embrace the option in decreasing gun violence. Thus, the argument of frisking proposed by the author seems week and ineffective in controlling illegal guns or decreasing gun …show more content…
This is not the reality because police frisks can turn rough where a person may even be shoved against a police patrol vehicle. Furthermore, the author persuades the audience to support the argument and assumes that the reader will not be a likely target. This is because he indicates that the targets will be individuals on probation or parole or people belonging to a gang that is known to deal with drugs or assaults. In this manner, Wilson appeals to the audience to embrace his argument, but there are no enough reasons why his claims should be supported.

Conclusion

The author assumes that the solution of police frisking will help to resolve the issue of gun violence in a better way compared to gun legislation. With the complete dismissal of gun control advocates and failure to highlight the consequences of police frisking, the argument made by the author is weak as well as ineffective. The frisking argument provided by the author tends to focus almost exclusively on its legality, but fails to provide an instance where similar policies have successfully been applied to resolve the issue at hand or to decrease the number of illegal guns that existed in a certain

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    With this being said, he displays that increasing legal restraints on purchasing guns will have little to no effect on the use of guns to commit crimes. He also defends his opinion saying the only thing stricter gun laws will do is prevent law abiding citizens from being able to purchase guns. In his essay, James Q. Wilson…

    • 825 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    They would rather buy a gun off the black market because more than likely the serial number will not be present on the weapon. It will be scratched off so the weapon cannot be tracked. “The result of these studies appear to indicate that gun control laws have no effect on criminals.” (Alters 1) As a result, even though there are gun laws in place, criminals find a way around it. Criminals always have. This is often argued by people since they tend to ignore the fact that criminals will always have weapons.…

    • 1892 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This belief, however, is disproved by evidence. If guns are made illegal to own, law-abiding citizens will then turn in their guns. However, those who wish to do harm with their guns would keep their guns illegally. Therefore, these laws not only take guns away from responsible citizens, but give those who wish to keep their guns an unfair advantage if they were to attack another person (ProCon.org). Gun control laws are ineffective and should not be in present in today’s society.…

    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    That when you buy a gun, you’re either going to be hurting yourself or another person. The Board also makes note of how officials try to distract the public with “arguments about the word terrorism,” (End the Gun Epidemic in America), but aren’t calling the shooting sprees and other gun shootings terrorism. Pathos was used well here because terrorism is always going to be an emotional and frightening topic to think or talk about. Especially since it’s happening in your own country but no one wants to shed light to the idea that mass shootings are related to terrorism. Pathos was effective because the argument to stricter gun laws provoked fear and emotions by shedding light on the real reason to buy a…

    • 1105 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Is Gun Control Good Or Bad

    • 1068 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Not only does it cause law abiding citizens to feel that their safety and rights are being infringed but it does not help prevent violent crimes. As has been mentioned, in some states the more gun-owners there were resulted in less violent crimes to occur. Despite the amount of laws that could be placed to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons there are still black markets and other illegal ways for them to get guns. Unfortunately, gun control would only be affecting those who abide by the law in obtain guns and using them. The United States should not be a place where people fear for their lives and have no way of protecting themselves.…

    • 1068 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Argument Against Gun Ban

    • 365 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Though this is a valid point that could arise, it does not explain why the areas with a gun ban had increased crime that was so drastic as opposed to the rest of the U.S. whose crime rate decreased. These statistics show that gun bans are quite possibly one of the worst ways to protect citizens, they could, in actuality, put people in more danger because they prevent them from using a gun as an effective mode of self defense. Some gun control supporters misconstrue the problem as just being with the gun itself when the real problem is the person who is behind it. When someone ,who is responsible and has been trained with handguns, is put behind a gun it becomes a tool for self defense and not a weapon as it does with violent criminals. What a gun ban really is, is something limits the self defense of our nation's citizens and keeps them unprotected against those who wish them harm.…

    • 365 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The other side of the coin argues that more gun control would lead to less violence, and this is the argument that the article “GUN CONTROL AFTER HELLER AND MCDONALD: WHAT CANNOT BE DONE AND WHAT OUGHT TO BE DONE”, by Gary Kleck, takes. These two articles disagree on a few main points, such as if gun control would actually influence gun violence, if self defense is…

    • 1331 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Just because there may be an interrelationship, or correlation, between two concepts does not mean that one is necessarily going to lead to the other. Establishing strict gun laws would put unnecessary restrictions on law-abiding citizens; therefore, they should not be enacted. Stringent gun laws do not always effectively prevent crime as criminals will still have their own connections to a gun in order to commit a crime; people need to stop playing the blame game and become educated about guns and the safety regarding them. Laws are put into place to give order; not to take away a basic right, such as the right to bare arms. If the right to bare arms were to be taken away, what would be taken away next, if that doesn’t solve the “problem”?…

    • 1090 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Gun bans remove weapons from citizens, placing them at risk for victimization. Stricter gun control laws will favor the criminal as there is an increased chance that the citizens will be unable to defend themselves making them vulnerable to attacks. Criminals will become increasingly brazen, no longer committing crimes in the dead of the night. Citizens will have to sit idly by, no longer able to thwart crimes in progress. Contrary to opponents for gun control, pro-gun control supporters do not believe the Second Amendment is an unlimited right to carry guns and therefore, does not infringed upon their rights (ProCon.org).…

    • 919 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The reason why we should not have stricter gun control law is because the problem is not adding more gun laws that will not solve the solution to why we have deaths or guns falling to the wrong people. With or without gun control law; criminals will still get a hold of one. Instead of trying to enforce more gun control laws, we should focus on educating the people about the safety of gun usage and by owning a gun does have the advantages of protect not only oneself, but your…

    • 817 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays