One of the arguments Obama makes in his speech targets the need for laws regulating gun safety. He begins by stating that thoughts and prayers are not enough. This is because they do not represent the grief and anger, that demand to be felt, nor do they change anything. He feels it has become routine when one of these shootings occurs and that we come to give a cavalier response. He feels we should politicize it and make changes to laws to make them safer, since it should not be that easy to get a gun in the United States. To support his arguments he criticizes that a lot of money has been spent to try and stop terrorism, yet congress will not allow to try and stop mass shootings. He mentions that when things like mines, cars, or even roads …show more content…
He argues that America is in need of more laws in order to ensure gun safety is honest and correct. For example, a lot of innocent people have died by consequence of unregulated gun possession, and more enforcement should lower events like these. However, his analogy to terrorism in this argument is not really stable. Firstly, because he compares mass shootings to terrorism, it makes it seem as if they are not far apart. However, terrorism is when people not from the U.S. try to harm American residents for the sole reason that they are American. Also, it is quite obvious that there will be more gun victims than terrorist victims over the past 10 years since terrorism is not as common in the U.S. especially in a short period of time. Anyway, his point was made and it got through to many, but he never mentioned what these laws should or would look like. He assures they will save lives, but never specifies at what cost or extreme. He does not give an idea of what these laws should enforce or regulate and this leaves a kind of blank ending to his argument. It is understood that guns are not safe, and he makes that point very clear, however he does not give an understanding to what will work to make them