IndexIntroductionIving's literary techniques for capturing the audience's attentionConclusionAt various times in American history, deliberations attributed to the port of weapons have led to heated debates with opposing sides criticizing each other's perceptions while at the same time providing ample evidence to support their views. While most of these debates have been ignored by most proceedings in recent years, they have highlighted the need for comprehensive American community involvement. Arguments for the need and desire for gun control have always been presented with unrealistic, absurd and irrational ideas and recommendations, yet, equally, those on the opposite side of the issue have steadfastly ignored the compromise or will to regulate firearms, despite tragedies ranging from school shootings to extreme terrorist attacks. As such, Molly Ivins uses derision, humor, common sense, and basic common sense to reach her readers in a fair call for compromise from both sides involved in gun control towards a positive end with critical means. Today the right to bear arms or the Second Amendment to the United States can be considered both a symbolic gesticulation of civil autonomies and a perceptible skirmish aimed at preserving the person's original freedoms. America's pioneers and founding fathers argued for firearms as a potential obstacle to monarchical rule. However, in the contemporary environment, prevailing issues, for example, increasing cases of murder, terrorism and different forms of organized crime, have contributed to a different perception with anti-gun communities advocating the enforcement of strict limitations and prohibitions depending on the conditions. the problem. Molly Ivins' efforts to address the topic through “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of the Guns” cannot be overlooked. Likewise, he explores gun control laws and defends his view that guns should be banned or, at a minimum, have austere restrictions. This article critically evaluates Molly Ivin's perspective based on an in-depth summary of key constructs and a comprehensive analysis of the different elements covered in her work. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay IntroductionDespite the fact that Ivin's argument depicts an unpalatable anti-gun perspective, the context of her work shows that she is more focused on expressing a logical appeal. The complete argument he uses is not only unique, but uses a writing style that can only be described as a consolidation of logic, comedy, and sarcasm. Admirably, he exploits the exception of the writing style through the use of lines such as “I'm not against guns. I'm in favor of knives” (Ivins np). At first glance, the statement appears strange since the majority of the essay focuses primarily on the complications of unregulated gun ownership. However, it is his way of introducing the comedic style used in making arguments about the often vague interpretation of the Second Amendment. The foundation of his argument is the Second Amendment's assertion that a well-regulated militia can bear arms, Ivin denotes that "fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia" (Ivins np). Sarcasm-laced comedy is mostly prevalent in Ivins' narrative, but it doesn't serve as an obstaclein bringing out his points and arguments on a sensitive topic. Even with unconventional tools, Ivins is consistent in providing a solid evidence model. and wittily responds to his arguments throughout. At one point, he uses a novel approach by quoting the popular film Jurassic Park to underline the risk of possessing power without any form of discipline. Such elements help the audience to associate with the imperative nature of the topic on a more individual level. The ending of the essay is subtle, as evidenced by the lines: “Ban the damn things. Ban them all. If you want protection, get a dog” (Ivins np). It is an impressive blend of humor, outspoken courage and a call to action, which undoubtedly strikes emotion in the reader and at the same time inspires readiness for change. Iving's literary techniques to capture the audience's attention Deliberations attributed to gun control and outcomes such as murder and death cannot be taken lightly, that despite the use of comedy, Ivins does not treat it as such and even goes as well as highlighting the intrinsic risks of the issue. Although the essay covers an extended period, the adversities explained are recognizable to today's readers, especially when considering the heights reached by the gun control debate (Ivins np). Indeed, at one point, it seems that Ivins is indirectly highlighting other contemporary problems, for example, the frivolous description of the benefits of knives as substitutes seems to counteract both gun carrying and obesity. In an attempt to justify his knife analogy, Ivins states that “a general replacement of knives with guns would promote physical fitness” (Ivins np). While humor makes his work entertaining, it also serves to make his argument less appealing to people who argue the other side of his argument. The mockery of gun advocates makes Ivins seem irrelevant and unworthy in their eyes. Indeed, the approach may cause his “pro-gun” readers to view his work as unconvincing and irrelevant. Gala (par.2) criticizes the informal nature of Ivins' approach by comparing her to the legendary Martin Luther King. He notes that the effectiveness of Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" is due to the fact that he addressed the opposition with respect and even goes further by integrating some of the arguments. However, Ivins seems aware of such possibilities and the formulation of such audience perceptions, but sticks to his comedy-influenced script, which makes his perspective on gun control interesting and worth reading. However, it is impossible to overlook the shortcomings in his perspective as they influenced the tone of the piece, that is, they prevented Ivins from developing much-needed authority. For example, at one point in the excerpt, he states that the typical pro-gun phrase “guns don't kill people” is “patent nonsense” (Ivins np). While this may seem like an attempt to make her position on the issue emerge, she goes on to contradict her arguments in the following sentences through the use of a rhetorical question. Apparently, you intend to support your idea on gun control and using knives and dogs as substitutes, but it would clearly show the abandonment of the opposing side's arguments. As well as showing a sort of disrespect towards the opposition, as highlighted above, it takes little account of some of their strengths (Ivins np). Probably, given the magnitude of the issue and the platform used to address it, the idea that Ivins' intention was more focused.