“Take a knife, get a dog, but get rid of the guns” is written by Molly Ivins, an American political satirist with a widely distributed column. She also wrote for the Dallas Times Herald for ten years and was twice nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. At the height of his career, Ivins wrote an article on the controversial subject of the right to keep and bear arms. His argument begins by discussing the idea of ​​knives replacing guns and the resulting impact on daily life. She clearly opposes the use of firearms and the carrying of weapons. Although Ivins highlights the unnecessary violence that guns cause in the civilian population through his signature style, his overall arguments are more flash than substance. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Ivin's irony and rhetoric are what strengthen his prose. She begins the article with an attempt at light humor by saying that "substituting knives for guns would promote physical fitness." Ivins indirectly addresses the growing rate of obesity in the United States. Its irony and satire are not only entertaining, but also a great way to grab and hold the reader's attention. Additionally, Ivins uses rhetorical questions such as in paragraph 11, “did the gun kill anyone” to trigger the reader's mind. Additionally, she uses real-life examples to make the text relevant, such as comparing a car to a gun. She says guns are used to "cause great carnage, just like cars, but they remain legal, even for those who don't have "enough sense" to handle them properly. However, they have not yet banned the vehicles. Additionally, they license these products and their owners, limit their use to adults believed to be sane and sober, and keep track of who sells them to whom. They should at least do the same with weapons. She talks about the counterargument that vehicles are as bad as guns, but no one questions whether they should be safe. Writing style aside, his argument has merit. Although there are other weapons that cause comparable damage, Ivin points out that using a gun is much easier and more deadly. Accidental death caused by a firearm is much more common than death caused by a bladed weapon. When an argument or heated conversation ensues between individuals, the presence of a firearm increases the possibility that a fight or argument will result in death or serious injury. There are multiple flaws that can be easily traced in the article that ultimately discredit its argument. . Even though Ivin offers a possible replacement for guns, his alternative choices have major flaws. She underestimates the deadly power of bladed weapons. A highly motivated person can easily commit a crime using a bladed weapon. Not only are bladed weapons widely accessible, but they are also silent and difficult to track. Ivin does not mention any statistics in the article and the statistics she relies on are false. “But if there had been no deaths, no one would have died.” Ivin believes that banning guns would reduce death rates, but she fails to realize that the statistics are directly related to the availability and accessibility of the gun and not the gun itself. So even if guns are banned, the next weapon.