I believe everyone has a right to their opinion, and if it 's supported by factual information can 't be denied. However, miss Ivins misleads us. Providing biased information in an attempt to …show more content…
She uses common sense, crime, and accidental death as a valid reason to restrict and ban guns. You can 't deny these are good reasons to restrict gun rights to competent individuals. Ivins uses another leading statement that actually supports restitution as a better option over a ban on firearms. She states,”The comparison most often used is that of the automobile, another lethal object that is regularly used to wreak great carnage.” Like me I don 't think you 've ever killed anyone with your car. I think this easily supports that when a competent person uses something deadly with care there isn 't any unattended cause and effect …show more content…
You don 't know what fear is, tell you 've heard coyotes fighting with one of your pets. Seconds to decide their fates, if love is worth risking your life. Grabbing your shotgun, rifle, or handgun and stepping through the front door into darkness. Pulling the trigger, hoping the sound of discharging powder is enough to avoid conflict. Fearing you 're too late and your loving dog is dead and gone the meal to a hungry predator. Ivins say there is no more frontier, she is dead wrong. The frontier never disappeared. As humans in our own hubris; we forget to remember that we moved into this frontier and share it with bears, coyotes, and any number of hungry predators. Those that live in the cities, you think you 're safe, but the predators are still there. There aren 't bears or coyotes, there are even more deadly animals; there your fellow man. People who want to take from you, all you 've worked hard for, and they don 't carry knives they carry