This difference mainly lies in the ways by which you prove the rightness of your claim. Let us take a closer look at these ways. The commonly accepted classification suggests three main methods of persuasion: Logos employs logic to appeal to the reader's rationality.
Pathos uses the irrational and appeals to emotion. Ethos employs authority and appeals to the sense of ethics. As we have mentioned, an argumentative essay focuses on proving the rightness of your argument rationally - so, it employs logos as the only method of persuasion.
In a persuasive essay, on the other hand, you focus on your result - persuading your reader. Thus, you can employ whichever of the three methods of persuasion you like in any combination. When we talk specifically about gun control, it is a heavily emotional topic, so it is hard to stick to dry facts and logic exclusively. So, when writing a gun control persuasive essay, not only logical but also ethical and emotional appeal is probably much easier than writing an argumentative essay and sticking to logic.
Consequentially, an argumentative essay suggests that you use neutral language at all times, whereas in a persuasive essay you can relax and write in moderately emotional language here and there.
The writing and pre-writing processes for a persuasive essay will not be different from those for an argumentative one: As we have discussed, gun control is an extremely broad and multi-angled topic. Naturally, it is much bigger than one can cover in any essay, and you can investigate this topic in a gun control research paper or even bigger academic papers. If you choose to write a research paper on gun control, however, you will still find that the topic is too broad and you will have to narrow it down according to your personal and academic interest.
Still, if you find a particular gun control-related topic interesting, it is not enough to make a good topic for a research paper. It also has to be original, i.
On the bright side, you usually will not have to pick a fixed topic and stick to it. At the initial stage of your work, you can formulate your subject somewhat vaguely and specify and adjust the topic to your liking with the course of your research. Another distinct feature of a research paper is that it needs a presentable list of referenced sources.
You do not have to stick to other authors' writing here. You are also allowed often even encouraged to get and use your own empirical findings. One final thing that you need to know about a research paper is that it needs to focus on the research data - facts and analytics, rather than opinions and reflections - your own or those of other authors.
Gun control is one of those topics that encourage us to be biased and express opinions. Hence, there are lots of opinions on gun control out there - both pro and anti, - and most probably, you have one as well. However, when you are writing an academic paper, you cannot make your writing strictly opinion-based.
Regardless of what kind of assignment you are writing, everything you write there has to refer to hard evidence. In other words, any kind of paper on gun control demands profound research. You need to be well informed about the background of the issue and both sides of the argument.
As you know, the very issue of individual firearm possession and its control date back to the late 18 th century and the famous Second Amendment. So, this is where you begin your research you should be familiar with the text of the Second Amendment. Given the amount of time that has passed since then, the understanding of the Second Amendment has evolved, which is marked by a number of notable court cases, about which you also need to be aware.
The most significant of them include United States v. Cruikshank , the United States v. Miller , District of Columbia v. Heller , McDonald v. The City of Chicago , and others.
However, being familiar with the background of the issue will only make your own opinion more reasoned, and this is not enough to put together an academic paper. You will also need be familiar with the current line of thought in both pro and anti gun control directions.
To do that, you should read the gun control articles and watch the documentaries on the issue from reputable news sources, such as Businessweek, New Yorker, Times, CNN, and others. Anti gun control articles are written by experts who are convinced that individual firearm possession should not be controlled more than it already is or should not be controlled at all. You can begin your research by looking through these articles:.
DePhilippis and Hughes have co-founded the site Armed With Reason to inform people about gun violence prevention. The article centers around the idea that introducing more strict gun control regulations does not decrease gun violence because criminals procure firearms illegally anyway.
Wilson is an author of several books on crime and teaches at Pepperdine University. The article blames the gun control lobby of populism and points out that they have no suggestions as to what to do with the existing amount of guns owned by individuals: Hardy is an attorney from Arizona. He claims that as an anti gun control person, he is open to dialogue with the opponent side, which he cannot say about them.
He claims that they are like fanatics on a crusade who will not stop until all individual firearm possession is banned. Taya Kyle is the widow of the late Chris Kyle whose story was the basis for the movie American Sniper.
She wrote this emotional and insightful piece to express her views on the issue. If you want to read more about it, she also has written a book American Wife: Davidson interviews James Jacobs, the director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University School of Law, to pinpoint the definition of gun control as exactly as possible and to question the most popular approaches to gun control.
In this article, Davidson clarifies what gun control actually is and puts to question various popularly suggested gun control methods. Hunter serves as an aide to the conservative Senator Rand Paul. In his article, he claims that gun control lobbyists only notice the cases where mass shootings occur while ignoring the instances where well-intended gun-owning citizens have prevented crime and violence.
He also lists some inspiring stories of the latter instances. Pro gun control articles are written by people who are not enthusiastic about the current gun control policy and suggest that either it should be more strict, or individual firearm possession should be downright outlawed. Here are some of the most interesting examples:. Gun Control and the Constitution: Should We Amend the Second Amendment? Barrett points out that the language of the Second Amendment is too vague, which leaves it too open to interpretation.
The article calls for a completely new regulation that will be more precisely formulated and limit the individual firearm possession to the militia. Bovy claims that all the current talk around gun control is futile and pointless and that the only way to stop gun violence once and for all is to outlaw all individual firearm possession.
LePore takes an in-depth look into the issue, starting with the Second Amendment and investigating how our understanding of this document has evolved since then, also noting how guns are different today from what they were years ago. Before landing a job at The Atlantic, Hamblin was fired from his previous workplace for drafting a piece on draft control. He speculates that the people involved politicize the issue too much instead of discussing it as it is.
The article takes a look at the existing gun control regulations in California, known to be some of the most strict in the country. The authors evaluate the effectiveness of these laws and, through pointing out some loopholes, conclude that they are not strict enough. It is surprising to find an insightful piece on gun control in such a magazine as Rolling Stone, but given how deeply this talk penetrates our culture, it is only logical for such piece to appear.
Marcotte offers a somewhat "outsider" look and tells why the pro-gun arguments do not appeal to the audience to which they are supposed to appeal.
Academic level Undergraduate Bachelor Professional. In the following days, weeks, and months, this event brought calls for stricter gun laws, and renewed the debate over whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.
There is no doubt that guns are an integral part of American history. From the smoothbore muskets wielded by farmers in the Revolutionary War, to the M1 Garands carried by the valiant soldiers of the U. Military in WWII, to the 5. But civilian ownership of guns in America is a dividing issue.
At the center of the debate is the Second Amendment to the U. Those in favor of gun control tend to believe that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms as a collective right, meaning one reserved for the military.
Those who support gun rights believe that the Second Amendment is meant to protect the right of individuals to bear arms. The ability of the government to regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms grew controversial in the years leading up to the American Revolution.
The British realized that organized armed colonists could resist their oppressive regime, and began confiscating their weapons. One such effort to capture colonial arms and ammunition in Massachusetts sparked the Revolutionary War. The Revolution and the civilian militias provided the primary context for the Second Amendment.
The debate about whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right began in the Jacksonian era, when in response to the disarmament of British citizens in the mid to late 18th Century, legal experts began to describe the importance of the individual right Tucker. The first laws that expressly prohibited certain individuals from owning firearms were passed soon after the Civil War, when Southern states enacted laws prohibiting blacks from owning firearms Mississippi.
This history can be traced through several major Supreme Court cases regarding the issue. The first of these cases is Presser v. In this case, Mr. Presser organized an armed march of German Americans through the streets in Chicago, where it was illegal for armed groups to parade without a permit. Presser thought this was unconstitutional, on the grounds that it violated the Second Amendment.
The second case to arise was United States v. Two men were transporting a sawed-off, double-barreled shotgun across state boundaries without paying the necessary National Firearms Act NFA tax. When they were arrested, they were released because the lower court believed that the NFA was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the men were guilty, because at the time a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches was not associated with the type of militia activity protected by the Amendment and therefore Congress could regulate the possession of such weapons Sommers.
The third case to come to the Supreme Court on the issue of gun control was United States v. A Texas high school student was carrying a handgun within a high school. Under the recently enacted Gun-Free School Zone Act, carrying a firearm inside of a school was a federal crime. The Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional, on federalism and commerce clause grounds.
Federalism is the system central to American democratic theory that separates power between the federal and state governments. The fourth case to come before the Supreme Court was District of Columbia v.
Under this ruling, the individual right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment. The fifth case was McDonald v. Similar to Heller, a Chicago man wanted to buy a handgun for home defense, but he could not do so because Chicago banned handguns. State laws governing the private ownership of guns vary greatly.
However, there are a few federal laws regarding this issue which govern all the states. The first major federal law regarding gun control is the National Firearms Act. Conceived as a response to the organized crime epidemic, the NFA regulated several types of weapons: The next major law enacted is the aptly named Gun Control Act of This established the Federal Firearms License system, putting an end to mail order firearms like the one that was used to assassinate President John F.
Enacted in , the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, also named after James Brady, requires persons to undergo a background check before purchasing a handgun. Many attempts have been made to renew the ban, including one led by Senator Dianne Feinstein in , however, all such efforts have failed. Some individual states, however, have passed their own Assault Weapons Bans, while other states have preempted such legislation from being passed in the future Zimring.
Gun control is not an issue exclusive to the United States. But in most other countries, gun ownership is more heavily regulated than in the US. Such restrictions are not always effective in lowering crime. Russia has very strict gun laws, including banning all weapons except for long barreled shotguns and some BB guns from civilian possession.
Do they reduce gun violence? Proponents of the ban argue that such weapons have no sporting application, and should be kept out of the hands of civilians. But if an assault weapons ban, even if enacted, can affect only a very small percentage of crimes, what other solutions are there? And what is the best way to prevent criminal use of more commonly used guns, like your basic handgun.
One legislative solution is to target how criminals get their guns. While most guns are originally obtained through legal acquisition, approximately five of every six firearms used in crime was illegally obtained by that criminal. The National Tracing Center compiles information about firearms so that in the event one is used in a crime, law enforcement has information that could help trace the firearm legal purchase history.
This makes it easier for law enforcement to identify illegal gun trafficking. But what is the best way to stop individual criminals from getting guns? While there will always be acts of violence that cannot be prevented, what are the common sense steps our society could take? Also, all gun sales through FFLs, meaning all gun sales except private sales between residents of the same state, require the prospective buyer to undergo an FBI background check.
Third, a person may not transfer loan, sell, rent a firearm to another person if they suspect the buyer is prohibited from possessing a firearm Firearms. Fourth, straw purchasing, where someone who is prohibited from possessing a firearm uses a surrogate buyer to act for them, is a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison Straw. These requirements, however, apply only where the seller is or uses an FFL, not to private sales between individuals in the same state. Requiring background checks for all sales might help reduce certain kinds of gun violence, like the instances of domestic violence in which a person under a restraining order was able to purchase a gun without undergoing a background check.
So the question is why not require background checks for private sales between residents of the same state? Opponents argue that this would require background checks for sales between family members, and that in some areas the nearest FFL is inaccessible.
Some of these issues were addressed in a bipartisan bill introduced in by Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey. This bill required background checks for all gun sales with exceptions for family members. The bill was defeated in the Senate Blake. Theft remains a large factor in how criminals obtain firearms. A fix for this might lie in safe storage requirements.
Unfortunately, not all gun owners practice safe storage precautions. Incentives linking gun purchases with discounts for safe storage equipment would be a first step, or gun owners could be required by law to keep their guns stored when not in use, although this would likely be unpopular and decidedly necessary, seeing as most people advocate practicing safe storage in one form or another.
Another possibility is more and better education on using and storing firearms safely. Common sense suggests that educating people about gun safety will help avoid accidental deaths. Developed with the help of teachers, law enforcement specialists, and psychologists, to name a few, the Eddie Eagle program has been taught to more than 26 million children K-3rd grade Eddie.
Finally, some believe those who are concealed carriers can help stop crime, and there are situations where a concealed carry permit holder who was present as a crime unfolded did help to deter or prevent the crime. Unfortunately, not all people who have guns for self defense are sufficiently trained to act quickly and safely to stop a crime, and their firearms are sometimes used accidentally against innocents.
Training requirements vary greatly from state to state, but one possibility is a national concealed carry law that would establish uniform requirements. How can our nation respect the culture of hunting and shooting sports in some states, while other areas face high levels of urban gun violence?
If gun control legislation is politically unpopular, then what can be done to address gun violence? While some proposals remain either too controversial, or ineffective, there is more consensus around gun control legislation that focuses on criminals and how they get their guns. Better laws and enforcement tools around trafficking and straw purchasing, preventing theft, ensuring background checks for all purchases, and education could make a difference.
Guns are an important part of our history. Guns can be used for sport, for protection, and they can hold sentimental value like other prized objects. But they can also be used to hurt innocent people.
Owning a gun is a right that carries a heavy responsibility. Because of the inherent risk involved in owning and using guns, citizens who choose to own guns must be responsible in exercising their constitutional rights. Today, too many citizens on both sides of the debate demonize the other side. Our communities need to find space for open and honest dialogue. This is an issue that needs respect.
All citizens need to listen to both sides with an open mind and address the best arguments across the spectrum to find effective solutions.
Flintoff, Corey, and James Glynn. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Ridgeway, Greg, Glenn L. Strategies for Disrupting Illegal Firearm Markets: A Case Study of Los Angeles. The Individual Rights and Civic Responsibility: The Right to Bear Arms.
Rosen Publishing Group, William Young Birch and Abraham Small, Madison and judicial review; Marshall really screwed the Republic with that one.
The other Thomas Jefferson believed that any one branch having final say as to the constitutionality of a law would simply devolve, in time, into tyranny. For the most part, very factual, and the instances where the author is injecting his own opinion are noted as such, or are offered up as questions to the reader. Without facts to back it up, this paragraph needs to be modified.
There is little to no evidence of an armed intervener making an already felonious situation worse. Thank you, that is what I attempted to say, below, with less clarity. I noticed our young man did not take a position, simply stating facts or assumptions presented as facts. Some adult research will do him well, and he should start from a neutral position if he wishes to come to a rational decision.
Young man, you have a future, here! Do not accept lies, find out for yourself. Try addressing that on your next dissertation. It was looking very good until that point. Concealed carriers absolutely knock it out of the park in terms of self defense. CCW holders are more accurate than police and are less likely to shoot the wrong target. CCers shooting the wrong target? LEOs shooting the wrong target? The number of citizens shot but not killed by LEOs has to be in the thousands.
Why not all violence? Is getting killed by a gun somehow worse than being killed by a knife, bat, or bare hands? This has been one of the key tenets of our gun-rights arguments. Stop talking about gun violence and start talking about all violence. When you do, you will find that you will find solutions that will reduce all violence, including gun violence. Until you do, the best you can do is cause gun violence to change into other forms of violence, with no reduction or even an increase in violence overall.
This is supported by several examples around the world. Oh, damn, I did not think of that. I want to know what grade that paper got. It fails to take a clear stance in any regard. It also fails to provide strong evidence in support of a view point. As far as a strictly essay grade? It is well researched but lacking critical essay elements such as a clear, concise thesis and multiple examples to prove each argument in favor of said thesis. As a research paper? The research is good and it does provide a balanced statement of the facts.
This is not coming from a teacher but someone who took university level essay courses. So depending on the school, system and views of the teacher they could grade higher or lower. It does need a rewrite.
There are good examples, but it needs a thesis. Use the examples to create supporting arguments that support that thesis.
Here is a good source: I take some issue with the last paragraph. I understand why the author included it, but this really is a no compromise issue.
Anymore than we should have a dialogue about making a state religion, banning newspapers or quartering soldiers in private homes. Any change comes from us, not culture warriors and people that hate and despise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. It is important to have those who understand guns and the Constitution in the dialogue so that we can avoid blind alleys, ineffective proposals and, of course, infringements on the rights of the innocent.
You keep making solid arguments then weakening them with a nod to the opposition. An example would be background checks. On a different note, not everything needs legislation. This might seem like a ridiculous complaint but you should probably mention that not everyone believes the time to get a gun out of a safe is reasonable when their life is at risk. The anti crowd strongly believe that to be true, but even the smallest amount of thought proves it to be untrue.
Are we talking about commas? I have heard all manner of different commas. Which is right seems to not make a difference to me. He forgot Dredd Scott. Freedom of religion is an individual right. Freedom of speech is an individual right. Freedom of the press is an individual right. Freedom to assemble is an individual right. Freedom to petition the government is an individual right.
Freedom from having troops quartered in your house is an individual right. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is an individual right. The right to due process is an individual right.
Freedom from double jeopardy is an individual right. Freedom from self-incrimination is an individual right. Freedom from eminent domain claims without just compensation is an individual right. The right to a speedy trial is an individual right. The right to a public trial is an individual right. The right to a jury trial is an individual right. The right to confront witnesses is an individual right.
The right to counsel is an individual right. Freedom from excessive bail is an individual right. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment is an individual right. But it amazes me that some people think that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right, but that it is a collective right! One key problem with universal background checks is in the enforcement of that requirement. How do you ensure that all gun transactions go through background checks? The only effective way is through gun registration, which has been abused many times in the past by governments.
An essay or paper on The Gun Rights. Gun Control Is Really Gun Abolition! At about three in the morning, a family residing in decent neighborhood outside of Los Angeles peacefully slept one night.
In a pivotal decision and a victory for gun rights advocates, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it was an unreasonable restriction on the Second Amendment rights of D.C. citizens. Under this ruling, the individual right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment. The fifth case was McDonald v.
Gun Control vs. Gun Rights essaysSince the days of the pioneers of the United States, firearms have been part of the American tradition as protection and a means of hunting or sport. As we near the end of the 20th century the use of guns has changed significantly. Gun Control vs. Gun Rights Essay Words | 36 Pages. Running Head: GUN CONTROL VS. GUN RIGHTS Gun Control vs. Gun Rights By Robert Marlow For CJ Senior Seminar Dr. Michael Eskey Park University September Abstract Gun control and gun rights have been an issue that has been debated for decades.
I will be talking about why we should keep our gun rights based on: home safety, illegal guns and the second amendment of the constitution. We will write a custom essay sample on Persuasive Essay on Gun Rights specifically for you. Gun Rights Vs Gun Control Essay The Second Amendment; Gun Rights versus Gun Control Our government is involved in a balancing act which deals with gun rights versus gun control.