“Take a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of the Guns” is written by Molly Ivins, an American political satirist with a column widely syndicated. She also wrote for the Dallas Times Herald for ten years and was twice nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. At the height of his career, Ivins wrote an article on the controversial topic of the right to keep and bear arms. His argument begins by referring to the idea of ​​knives as a substitute for guns and the resulting impact on everyday life. Describes a clear position against the use of weapons and the carrying of weapons. While Ivins sheds light on the unnecessary violence that firearms cause in civilian populations through his iconic style, his overarching arguments are more flash than substance. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Ivin's irony and rhetoric are what enhance his prose. He begins the article with an attempt at lighthearted humor by saying that “replacing knives with guns would promote physical fitness.” Ivins indirectly takes a stand on the growing obesity rate in the United States. His irony and satire are not only entertaining, but are also a great way to capture and hold the reader's attention. Additionally, Ivins uses rhetorical questions such as in paragraph 11, “did the gun kill someone,” to trigger the reader's mind. Additionally, use real-life examples to make the text relatable, such as comparing a car to a gun. He claims that guns are used to "wreak great carnage just like cars, but are still legal even for those who don't have 'enough common sense' to handle them properly." However, they have not yet banned the vehicles. They also license them and their owners, limit their use to apparently healthy and sober adults, and keep track of who sells them to whom. They should at least do the same with weapons. You talk about the counterargument that vehicles are just as bad as firearms, but no one questions whether they should be safe. Aside from the writing style, his argument has some merit. While there are other weapons available that cause comparable damage, Ivin points out that using a gun is much simpler and more fatal. An accidental death caused by a firearm is much more common than one caused by a cold weapon. When an argument or heated conversation ensues between individuals, the presence of a weapon increases the likelihood that a confrontation or argument will end in death or serious injury. Multiple loopholes can easily be found in the article which ultimately discredit his argument. . While Ivin provides a possible replacement for firearms, his alternative choices have major flaws. He underestimates the fatal power of cold weapons. A highly motivated person can easily get away with committing a crime using a cold weapon. Not only are sidearms widely accessible, but they are also silent and difficult to track. Ivin does not mention any statistics in the article and the statistics he relies on are false. "But if there hadn't been the disappearance, no one would have died." Ivin believes that banning firearms would reduce the death rate, but does not realize that the statistics are directly related to the availability and accessibility of the gun and not the gun itself. So even if firearms are banned, the next widely available weapon will take its place, the knife.” If you want protection, get a dog” is Ivins' next tip. However, they are not dog proof.