The same can be said about which side of the gun control argument that you find yourself on; it is truly a matter of who you are talking to at the moment. Both Thompson and Desuka have made good points in making their arguments. I think that the stronger of the arguments was made by Desuka. Even though I can see both sides of the argument, the idea of controlling the amount of handguns that are available for criminals to use is a good one. Thompson's argument that crimes would go down because everyone would have a gun is somewhat logical. But it does not address the issue of the innocent people who get hurt and killed because there are so many guns available.

The big flaw that I see in Thompson's argument is that she is assuming that just because laws are passed that say everyone can carry a handgun does not mean that everyone will go out and buy one. So I'm sure that her logic that crimes would automatically go down is correct. I think that she could strengthen her...

It is bad enough that the criminals are using them not only on each other but on innocent people, but having kids and innocent bystanders get killed just because the gun was there is not acceptable.
I'm not sure that either of these arguments taken at face value is the answer to the ageless problem.

I think that maybe a different approach that incorporates some of both of these approaches but meets somewhere in the middle is better approach. Some form of controlling the amount of handguns that are available, but yet upholding the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is what is needed.

Works Cited

Bedau H.A., Bedau H. And Barnet, S. Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings. (8th edition).

NY.Y: Bedford/St.Martins:2008