Jul 22, 2019
category: Literature

The 21st century is becoming popular with its paradoxes. People want to live for billions of years in peace on this planet, but they are doing everything to destroy the planet where they live. Global conflicts, environmental issues, violence, and even some types of technology are killing millions of people each day. However, it is important to remember that big problems consist of many smaller ones. That is why it is significant to talk about weapons that cause violence and death in our everyday life.

The article “No valid reason for such lethal firepower” by O. Ricardo Pimentel was published to shed light the other side of the death sentence on Mark Anthony Gonzalez. Gonzalez had killed Sheriff Sgt. Kenneth Vann in Bexar with the help of Ar-15. However, the author states that the rifle is a civilian version of the M-16, which is one of the deadliest, most common rifles used by the US soldiers in Vietnam and other wars. Pimentel reacts with an opinion that it is wrong to sell such lethal firepower to civilians because these rifles give them the ability to kill many people fast. His next claim is that people overrate death penalties, when they have to prohibit the weapon marketing to fight the cause, not the result. In addition, it is clear to the author that handguns have killed far more people, but he says that they need to be prohibited too. His position is supported by the description of the Gonzalez crime: he decapitated Vann less than in 30 seconds, giving him no chance to survive. On top of that, this rifle was used by the person who had some troubles with the law in the past. Furthermore, the author claims that nowadays people think that gun usage can be a sport while it can kill people. For Pimentel this situation is more like a joke, and the reason for it has to be prohibited in the future.

Free Extras

Free Extras
Free Extras

The author’s position is weaker than it should be to state it explicitly. However, he provides some reasons why his position is significant. Pimentel’s supporting points are mostly emotional because he does not state this problem as a global issue. He does not provide any data or statistics that could support his claims, and the only thing he does is the description of the case with emotional appeals. However, he gives an example of a man who killed many children and teachers with the similar rifle to say that it is not right to sell such a lethal weapon. Unfortunately, it feels that this article does not contain the reasonable amount of support. Clearly, Pimentel’s supporting points are relevant to the issue, but his audience would most likely consist of people who do not have an attitude radical enough to change things. People of Maryland are not highly interested in such changes in the law that will correlate with weapon ban, and that can be tracked in this article because the author is scared to provide radical claims. Due to that fear, author’s arguments are even less effective than they had to be because emotional appeals are less reasonable without radical output.

I agree with the author that such lethal power is unnecessary. In addition, I think that it is wrong to kill people. I think that the only place where people can hold guns, as civilians, is in the special place for hunting or on special courts for shooting contests. However, I also believe that a human life is sacrificial and priceless so that people have to do anything to protect it. I mean that people have to prohibit such entertainment as guns and ban them completely. Moreover, the article made me think more about religion. I am sure that religious people do not buy guns, and that is one more positive thing that describes it.

To summarize the issue, it should be mentioned that each of us has to form radical opinions about everything and follow those opinions. That technique will provide more discipline in our minds and people will state their opinions clearer. Furthermore, it is significant to understand that only a clearly stated opinion can catch attention of the audience. Some things like gun purchases have to be prohibited, and the previously described technique is what it takes to change things for the better.

Recent essays