Should guns be regulated? This has been questioned by society for generations, and will be for many to come. Molly Ivins gives her opinion on the issue in her argument Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns. This well-stated argument gives many details about why the use of guns should be banned. .
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-regulated militia, but still have access to the use of a gun. .
The writer uses cars as a metaphor to guns signifying that cars are a deadly object as are guns, but cars are subject to only those who are licensed to them and a certain assembly of people are allowed to purchase them. She proposes that the same restrictions should be placed on those who want to purchase a gun. Ivins uses many valid and essential points in this argument to prove her opinion that guns should not be a part of our society. She points out the argument weather "guns don"t kill people" (404) and believes that this is a false statement in support of her side of the argument. She also discusses how family arguments usually end in a detrimental way due to the fact that there is a gun in presence.