The Issues on Gun Control Essay Example

danger to police officers? As someone with a police officer uncle, I am well aware of how unpredictable some individuals can be.

According to Wilson (128), "Stop-and-frisk" policies will only result in more encounters between law enforcement and armed criminals, potentially leading to fatal consequences. However, Wilson fails to address the social injustices that would arise from expanding this practice nationwide, which significantly weakens his argument. Furthermore, Wilson does not provide any supporting evidence for the effectiveness of police frisks in reducing gun violence or illegal firearms on the streets (Wilson 126).

In his essay, Wilson examines the legitimacy of self-defense as a justification for reducing gun control. This might suggest that he is avoiding discussing the known successes or failures of stop-and-frisk policies (Wilson 127). Instead of providing specific reasons for its effectiveness, Wilson focuses on explaining how stop and frisk operates and what actions are considered acceptable by the Court to protect law enforcement from legal consequences (Wilson 127). Personally, I find Wilson's essay unconvincing to skeptical readers who question the efficacy of well-known policies. Furthermore, I take issue with Wilson's disregard for the opinions held by advocates of gun control. Growing up in a conservative household, my family and I have always respected differing viewpoints, even when we disagree - including those advocating for gun control.

In his essay, Wilson completely dismisses the progun control argument, going as far as to label it "politically absurd" (Wilson 127). Throughout the essay, Wilson's bias is evident as he devotes five paragraphs to argue against gun control, which is about the same length as his discussion on police frisking (Wilson 125-128). This suggests that Wilson uses police frisking

as a topic merely to draw readers' attention, while primarily focusing on criticizing the pro-gun control argument. I believe that if Wilson had allocated less time to bashing gun-control advocates and instead presented facts and statistics to support the effectiveness of police frisking, his essay would have been more persuasive. However, I do acknowledge a few positive aspects in Wilson's work.

Wilson presents police frisks as a harmless procedure, describing them as the “patting down of a person’s outer clothing,” but in reality, they can be invasive and rough, often involving forceful actions like being thrown to the ground or pushed against a patrol car. He also suggests that individuals on probation or parole or those associated with violent gangs are more likely to be subjected to these frisks. While some may view this as deceptive, it effectively engages a wider audience for his paper. Wilson's argument regarding the usefulness of guns for self-defense is also quite persuasive. His mention of the statistic that guns are used over a million times annually for defensive purposes grabs attention.

In summary, Wilson's viewpoint may be deemed offensive by gun control advocates and minorities could potentially perceive it as a sacrifice of their rights for the benefit of society. I personally believe that implementing appropriate guidelines and adequately training officers could enhance the effectiveness of frisks in reducing the prevalence of illegal firearms in public spaces. Nonetheless, Wilson's argument is significantly impeded by a lack of evidence, antagonism towards gun control advocates, and a dearth of solutions pertaining to issues like racial profiling and overcrowded prisons.