Molly Ivins Analysis

Molly Ivins uses humor to make a compelling argument for gun control in her op-ed newspaper article, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns.” Although she mentions many advantages of banning guns and using knives as substitutes, she fails to address some points in her arguments. For instance, Ivins suggests that if the reader “want[s] protection,” he or she should “[g]et a dog” instead of a gun (216). Though this solution may seem sensible, Ivins fails to point out the shortcomings of getting a dog as a safety measure over a gun. Arguably, a dog is not as effective as a gun because an offender who wishes to commit a crime against someone or someone’s property can easily manipulate the dog. The offender can manipulate the dog by providing the

Therefore, if that argument does not make sense Ivins, she would naturally support the banning of guns because “[g]uns do kill” (215). By outright banning guns, this may result in the creation of a black market for guns. Since guns would be illegal, more people would resort to underhanded methods of obtaining firearms. This is similar to what happened when there was a prohibition of the sale, transportation, and manufacturing of alcohol across the nation. During this prohibition, places became dangerous because gangs were at war as a result of trying to remain in control of alcohol smuggling operations. Thus, in an attempt to fix one problem, the US government created a new one. Thereafter, the government had no other choice but to repeal the law enacting the alcohol prohibition. Additionally, this rise in black market sales would occur because imposing a ban would not address the issue. Instead, the government needs to address the people, the root cause, because people kill people, not guns; guns are merely tools. Therefore, this is one such competing argument that opposes Ivins’ argument for banning