StudyBoss » Gun » Get A Knife Get A Dog But Get Rid Of Guns

Get A Knife Get A Dog But Get Rid Of Guns

We all know that guns are dangerous. They’re designed to kill, and all too often they do. But we also know that guns can be used for self-defense, recreation, and even hunting. So what’s the answer?

The answer is simple: get rid of guns.

Now, I’m not saying that everyone should go out and get rid of their guns. I’m simply saying that we need to find a way to reduce the number of guns in circulation. And one way to do that is to make it harder for people to buy them.

We could start by making it illegal to sell guns without a background check. We could also raise the age limit for buying guns, and require safety training before a gun can be purchased.

There are plenty of other ways to reduce the number of guns in our society, but one thing is clear: we need to do something about the problem of gun violence. It’s time for us to get rid of guns.

Molly Ivins and Her Insane Gun Theory Molly Ivins, in her Op-Ed essay “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns,” advocates for an absolute ban on civilian gun ownership. While claiming to be “not antigun,” she goes on to argue that she is “proknife.”

This is because, as she explains it, “the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to bear arms.” It only guarantees the right to form a militia, which is now the National Guard. Ivins points out that the Founders never intended for civilians to be armed and that they were quite clear on this point. In fact, when asked what kind of people should be in the militia, George Washington said “only those who are well-regulated.” This means that only those who follow the law should have guns.

In her second point, Ivins argues that the Founders did not want civilians to be armed because they were afraid of them. She quotes Thomas Jefferson, who said that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” In other words, violence is necessary to keep liberty alive.

But Jefferson also said that “the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” So, according to Ivins, the Founders were not afraid of an armed populace, but rather they thought that an armed populace was necessary to protect liberty.

In her third point, Ivins argues that guns are not effective self-defense weapons. She cites a study that found that those who have guns in their homes are more likely to be shot than those who don’t have guns. She also points out that most gun owners don’t know how to use their guns effectively and that even the police are often afraid of civilians with guns.

In her fourth point, Ivins argues that gun ownership is not a “God-given right.” She points out that the Bible does not mention guns, nor does the Constitution. Therefore, it is not a right that is guaranteed by either of these document.

In her fifth and final point, Ivins argues that gun control laws are not effective. She cites Australia as an example of a country that has strict gun control laws and a low rate of gun violence. She also points to the fact that there are more gun deaths in the United States than in any other country.

Ivins’s argument is not particularly strong. She relies heavily on sarcasm and emotional appeals, rather than logic and reason. Additionally, her points are not well-supported by facts and data. Nevertheless, her overall message – that civilian gun ownership should be abolished – is an important one that should be given serious consideration.

She appears to be offering an impartial analysis at first, but she immediately reveals her insolent humor when she admits that people should just exchange guns for knives. Ivins continues with a healthy anti-gun and pro-knife mentality, which would “encourage physical fitness” by requiring the victim to pursue down his or her assailant in order to do damage.

She also believes that America should look to other countries, such as Great Britain, for example, where they have “virtually eliminated” guns and yet “manage to survive.”

While Ivins may be a little over-the-top with her rhetoric at times, she does make some excellent points in this column. First and foremost among these is the idea that guns are simply too easy to obtain in the United States. It is far too easy for people with mental health issues or criminal records to get their hands on firearms, and this needs to change.

Secondly, she makes a good point about how knives can actually be beneficial in promoting physical fitness, as opposed to guns which promote laziness and obesity. Finally, she highlights the fact that other developed countries have managed to get rid of guns without any negative consequences, so there is no reason why America cannot do the same.

This is a rather clever way to put it, because she almost addresses the obesity problem our nation of gun owners has created by making fun of how lazy using a gun to solve issues is. Her point that “knives don’t ricochet” emphasizes her idea that knives are superior weapons yet again. She lightly mocks the awful consequences of unintentional shootings, mentioning how unlikely an accidental stabbing would be.

In her piece, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns,” Anne Lamott argues that knives are superior to guns as weapons. Lamott starts by making a case against guns, saying that they are too easy to use and too often the cause of accidental shootings. She then goes on to extol the virtues of knives, saying that they are more difficult to use and less likely to cause accidental injury. Lamott concludes by saying that gun owners should get rid of their guns and replace them with knives.

Lamott’s argument is based on the idea that guns are too easy to use and too often the cause of accidental shootings. She says that knives are more difficult to use and less likely to cause accidental injury. Lamott’s argument is convincing because she provides evidence to support her claims. She cites the fact that guns are more likely than knives to be involved in accidents, and she also notes that knives are less likely than guns to be used in crimes.

Lamott’s argument is also persuasive because she uses emotional appeals. She talks about how guns can be used to accidently shoot innocent people, and she also mentions how gun violence can tear families apart. These emotional appeals make Lamott’s argument more convincing.

In conclusion, Anne Lamott’s argument that knives are superior to guns as weapons is convincing because she provides evidence to support her claims and because she uses emotional appeals. Lamott’s argument is important because it can help to reduce gun violence by encouraging people to get rid of their guns and replace them with knives.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Leave a Comment