I was preparing for the english composition clep and found this site while looking for some practice topics. This topic I borrowed from someone on the forum(Thanks guys!) and i'd like some feedback.
"The essay question had to do with Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's statement that guns outnumber the population, so it is pointless to attempt to ban them; ammo should be banned instead." Basically choose and argue a side.
I went for the opposite of the essay I saw... here goes.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan has stated that, "Guns outweigh the population so it would be pointless to attempt to ban them; Ammo should be banned instead." I feel this statement is a bit idealist for someone in a governmental position. As much as I would love to see the problem of shootings in our society curbed and eradicated, I don't see this proposed solution as a means to that end.
The obvious problem with this proposed plan of action is this : If banning guns so far has been ineffective (a gross understatement), how is the banning of ammo going to be more effective. Both state and federal government have worked, and continue to work, fruitlessy toward the goal of gun control. They have implemented and enforced laws and policies, such as the age and liscensing restrictions, to try to hinder the number of weapons within the general environment. Despite this, there are still gangs with twelve year olds who still manage to brandish these weapons. If similar restrictions are put on obtaining ammunition for these guns I am certain these unsavory characters will still find ways to get around them. It can be argued that guns are already out there and we could preemptively curb the amount of ammo on the market before it got out of control. This however would be a poor argument as I'm sure crime rates aren't as they are because of ammo-less guns. Like the guns, they already have the ammuntion.
A senator who is a premier part of our federal legislative body is more aware than anyone of the obstacles that come with creating and implementing new policy. Without the supplement of Interest groups and the concurrence of the people, I have yet to hear of the Anti-Ammo Association of America, it is unlikely that such a proposal will get very far in congress. If the proposed bill somehow manages to make it through all the red tape there is still the question of who will be paying for the implementation of this policy. Our country is by no means prepared to take on more useless expenditure for a program that, if the history of our struggle with gun control is any indicator, will be somewhat ineffective.
Let's say we overlook the absurdity of the policy in itself and by some pork-barelling trickery this Senator and his horribly misdirected colleagues manage to have such a bill passed. We add a bit more to the national debt and mange to remove all the ammuniton from the streets. The utopian ideal is now achieved. We, however, cannot underestimate the creativity of the american people. Prisoners with limited resources manage to craft shanks and other weapons so I'm certain resourceful individuals can create their own ammo. Frozen bullets anyone?
In summation, I am certain Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan was well intentioned in his proposal but good intentions don't necessarily transform into successes. Banning ammunition is not much different from banning guns. The latter might not be as successful as it should be but more could be done to try to better this policy than to implement a whole new one. Our country is in no position financially or socially to start new programs whose success is uncertain. If you are still not in agreeance just remember, ammo is easier to make.
The End
Is there spell check on the exam?
First of all, be careful with your grammar: "Like the guns, they already have the ammuntion." The they in this sentence seems to refer back to crime rates, but how does it make sense to say that crime rates have ammunition in the same way that guns do?
Also, you need to deal with the two obvious arguments in favor of the proposal:
1) guns don't get used up, or at least not very rapidly. Ammunition does, so if you ban ammunition, when the ammunition people already have gets used up, then it will become really difficult to get.
2) banning guns creates a constitutional hassle because of the second amendment. A ban on ammo might not, especially if the court was packed with pro-gun control judges when it heard the case.
You should respond to these two arguments, and show why they are wrong. Then, you should add more reasons of your own against the proposal. You could point out that gun ownership rates are generally unrelated to crime rates, and that where they are correlated, gun rates normally track crime rates. That is, when crime rates rise, more people buy guns, rather than the other way around. You could also explain that criminals, by their very nature, break laws, and so are generally unaffected by gun control measures of any sort, including potential ammo bans, and that such measures only even affect the law-abiding populace, that is, the portion of the population we can trust with guns. You could point out too that only an armed populace is guaranteed to remain under democratic governance. And so on.
