The discussion begins with the writers opinion on guns, stating that she in fact, is not anti-gun, but more of an advocate of the use of knives. The writer points out that knifes could become more of a positive alternative to the use of guns. She suggests that knives can not ricochet as do guns, and the fact that people are less likely to be killed cleaning their knife as they would be cleaning a gun. The argument then takes a turn into the author’s views to why guns should not be allowed and how they are destroying the security of our society. Using the Second Amendment in the constitution as a basis for her argument, the author points out that even though it is stated in the amendment that a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, individuals such as fourteen-year old boys and members of a religious cult are not part of a well-

In the US Constitution under the Second Amendment, we are granted the right to bear arms. But are we taking advantage of this constitution? Ivins gives us many details in supporting that fact that this amendment states very clearly that the right to bear arms is limited to those who form a well-regulated militia such as those fighting for our country or the National Guard. If we can eliminate the amount of people being allowed guns, we can decrease the amount of people who die each year from them. According to the FBI’s crime in the United States, an estimated 66% of the 15,517 murders in the year 2000 were committed with firearms. Just think of these people being murdered by these guns. What if they were related to you in some way? Would that change your outlook on weather or not guns should be allowed to these executioners? Sooner or later, a gun related incident will affect you or your family in some way. Everyone coming together and making a difference can save many lives per year.

She has a well-structured and written essay with many valid and substantial points, and I agree with her in most aspects of her argument. Ivins points out that knifes are a positive alternative to the use of guns, but I disagree. It is a truth that knives will never be regulated, but they shouldn’t be used as a weapon. She uses the knife to distract the reader to the point that there is an alternative to having a gun. I donâ€

Some topics in this essay:
Using Amendment, According FBI’s, Rid Guns, Constitution Amendment, National Guard, , well-regulated militia, Molly Ivins, bear arms, kill people, positive alternative guns, knifes positive alternative, convincing author, amount people, knifes positive, positive alternative, opinion guns, save lives, guns kill,