In “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns,” Molly Ivies uses strong sarcasm and emotional language to question the meaning of the second amendment and justifications of gun ownership. Ivins states that while she supports the second amendment, she believes that its current application conflicts with the original intent. The author contends that the wording permits the military use of firearms, and this implies training and discipline. Ivins indulges in the comparison between a gun and a car as equally dangerous while noting the regulations for the use of vehicles. She also points out that the gin is used for one purpose. To kill. The author notes that it is a minority of citizens who are lobbying the government to keep their supposed rights. She ends by stating that is not right to indulge these people who “need to feel they have the power to kill.” It is a moving essay, but there are equally passionate discourses from the opposition as well. Passion aside, let us examine the things of importance: Is it appropriate, Is it possible, is it tolerable, and is it wise?
A gun ban would be ineffective, counterproductive, and impossible. Blaming guns for violence is like blaming spoons for obesity. We need to look at the real root causes of gun violence. What might work is to educate the public on responsible gun ownership for self defense and harsher punishment for criminals. You shouldn’t have to break the law to protect yourself.