In a critical response to, "Next, Comprehensive Reform of Gun Laws" written by USA today, I feel that the author writes with a great deal of rhetoric and unsupported claims throughout the entire article.
At the very beginning of the writing, USA Today bashes gun lobbyists by using a persuasive explanation to describe the passing of the Brady Bill. "The gun lobby got sucker-punched It couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch", claims USA today. This slanting device bashed the gun lobbyist without any supporting claims to back their slander of the gun lobbyists. The article goes on to explain the length of time it has taken Congress to pass the bill in spite of the American public's support of the bill. I guess Congress doesn't pass legislation because of American public's support. The gun lobbyist's political intimidation and constitutional reasoning is what is to blame for holding up Congresses decision on the bill, explained USA today. Although we don't know if there had been internal problems with the bill that the public may not have known about, we assume that gun lobbyists are completely to blame for the hold up the House's decision. Again after this claim there is no secondary evidence to support their bold accusations.
After bashing the gun lobbyist's, USA Today goes on to explain that an anti-crime bill was passed that banned nineteen different types of weapons. At this point in the article I"m looking for answers to the gun control issues rather then legislation that has already been passed. USA Today's view states, " Waiting periods and weapon bans are welcome controls, but they are just the start of what we need". They claimed we need to do more, but so far there are no recommendations on ways to control the gun problem. .
The article then explains the logistics of the Brady bill, stating that a mandatory waiting periods and background checks, must be performed before a customer can walk out with a gun.
