Argumentative effectiveness of a 1994 New York Times essay on gun control

¶ … New York Times and was published on March 20, 1994 posing a discussion on the issue of introduction of stricter rules on the gun ownership as well as withdrawing more guns from the hand of the public. The article goes on to look at the various aspects of crime that are gun related and the means of controlling and lessening these crimes.

Thesis of the author

The overall thesis of the author is that there is need to have means of combating the illegal guns in the hands of criminals and potential criminals rather than reducing the number of guns in the hands of legal holders of such guns. He disapproves of the call to have stricter gun licensing procedures and reduction of the licensing of guns and points toward the reduction of number of guns in the hands of criminals using various means as the legal guns remain the hands of the licensed holders. To support his thesis, the author outlines several vulnerabilities that the legal holders of guns will be subjected to incase the guns are taken away, the statistics that indicate that legal ownership of guns does not contribute to violence and crime and the alternatives that are available to the law enforcement agencies in the approach to gun crime control and illegal gun possession menace.

Least effective examples

There are however some points that the writer tends to use to justify his thesis but do not add up as significant in the building of the argument. These are points that are either too hollow to hold ground or are countering the thesis itself in a way.

Arguing that the wielding of a weapon would fend off would be thieves is quite inaccurate since the thieves would be having weapons as well that they intend to use to scare a victim into submission but are likely to use it if they see the victim armed as well. The presentation of a weapon in a robbery scenario is likely to escalate the violence to a more deadly situation that it should have been in the first place. In as much as the robbers may be scared off at one point, they would learn their lesson and go look for weapons so that in their next robbery attempt they do not lose out. This argument is counterproductive in the reduction of gun related crimes since it leads to more illegal guns in the hands of the criminals at the long run.

Discarding the gun control on the basis that the number of injuries afflicted by handguns is fewer that fatalities by rifles and shotguns is quite misplaced. He further states in support of this that the number of fatal gun accidents have been declining while the number of gun ownership has been rising. He does not give the intervening factors that make this a possibility. Incase there are intervening factors that may cease at some time and the numbers are reversed then this argument would be null and void.

The author then indicates that the government has failed to protect the citizens hence there should be more guns out there. This is a misplaced reedy instead there should more pressure on the government to intensify security and the citizens to provide security to each other through viable programs like the community policing.

It is also worth noting that the pat-down by police will only nab the illegal weapons that are carried with the criminal at the time of the encounter with the police. Most of the time these guns are left at designated places only to be fetched for a specific assignment and returned. This will also not deter the illegal use of legally owned guns as the author has confessed that 2% of the legally owned guns get engaged in illegal uses.

It should also occur to the author that there are enough gun detection technologies that are out there but still the use of guns in crimes persists. These technologies are limited to ranges, even if it is fifteen feet, there is still possibility of criminals to be more that fifteen feet away from the device. It is more of the human approach to the gun crime saga that will sort out the issue rather than the technological approach since the criminals too have means and ways of dodging the technology.

Personal stand point

I do not agree with the stand of the author on the issue of gun controls. He tends to forget that here are many mistaken shootings and underage kids sneaking into schools with guns they got from their parents that were legally kept in the house. The large number of guns in the hands of Americans will inevitably result in higher crimes especially gun related crimes as compared to other countries where there are no guns in the hands of citizens. The possession of guns more often results into crime since the gun gives a sense of immediate revenge and victory as opposed to reporting the offense to the right authority to deal with it.

The argument of the author is not very convincing as he does not give comparative statistics from other nations that are equally developed like the U.S.A. And have no guns with citizens. This comparative analysis could have given the readers the chance to make their own decisions and judgments concerning the issue. The argument of the author seems to be one sided and drawing examples from one country only which is not sufficient to give a comprehensive analysis.

Reference

James Q. Wilson, (1994). Just Take Away Their Guns. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/20/magazine/just-take-away-their-guns.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm