Politicians Love Gun Control: Reframing the Debate Around Gun Ownership Paper Example

Induction behavior is mainly used to predict the action of the use of gun control for self-defense. "Politicians love gun control: reframing the debate around gun ownership" is geared towards securing the country. Hence, the relevant authorities will act in every piece of information to establish the degree of truthfulness or actual value of the argument. Therefore, this means that every bit of data collected will be reviewed to ascertain the degree of importance they carry. For example, indications that culture war in the United States can never be initiated by the oppressed because they are a result of violence and the issue of gun control directly affects the success or failure of the liberation movements. The government is the sole institution that can use lawfully violent coercion against others. The induction that gun control is a threat to security in various societies and the central government will respond to the information gathered on the association of the communities implicated, which is inductive reasoning. The initial rationale will formulate the first premise. Other premises will be formulated based on indicating the relationship of events in the current assumption and a conclusion established based on the reports of the debate regarding gun control.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Ad Hominem argument fallacy in gun ownership and self-defense is an argument that counter-argues the essence of gun control, prejudgment centered on the approaches that are inappropriate to the argument reasoning. It may be a method of vocal attack and appeals to feelings and prejudice when applying the fallacy. A particularly compelling argument regarding gun control in the United States is the guns do not kill an individual but individuals kill each other is a logical fallacy. The rights to rebel an argument assumes that armed rebellion is the sole attitude and protecting gun ownership is a terrible way of facilitating rebellions against the state. Another case is that gun control laws do not prevent crime, but gun ownership deters crime. The fact is that gun laws would prevent more gun deaths are it is ranked among the top causes of death in the United States. Not all opinions meant at averting adverse consequences of firearm ownership are slippery slope fallacies, any gun control opponents warning of any legislation that regulates ownership of firearms.

Another instance of logical fallacy is when he states "Gun control advocates will often find themselves being "against" the government when it comes to war, police brutality, corporate welfare, and free trade ruling but actively support the government's monopoly of force through gun control." This fallacy questions the clarity of by saying no right government would be against supporting police brutality, corporate welfare, and free trade. It tends to be an empty statement and depend on emotional appeal questioning the gun control advocates of what they support. Neal Shirley weakens her argument on gun control by employing demagogic strategies by using the logical fallacy.

Conclusion

The "Politicians love gun control: reframing the debate around gun ownership" story is very successful because it included various rhetorical techniques that easily attracts the attention of the reader. American people can recall the tragedies that occurred through the story and rethink about gun control and gun ownership. The use of logos and pathos in the story motivates Americans to think otherwise and create a motion countering gun control. I have an impression that this story can spur enough emotions to change gun policy in the U.S for citizens in different states to have safe living environments in the future.