Simply, we can deduce from the very title of this selection that the author Ivins is resolutely against firearms. Well, that's what I initially assumed, however, after reading the next sentence of the article, I realized it was completely the opposite. The headline can sometimes, as in these cases, reveal important information that readers can conclude before even reading the article. And that is certainly the case here. Although this is very misleading after reading the entire article. The author has no problem with allowing guns, but believes more restrictions need to be included. Say no to plagiarism. Get Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original Essay Anti-gun activists are very common in the world today, their reasoning is very logical, and there certainly should be have more restrictions for such cases. Even with high security and gun patrols, many incidents and unnecessary actions occur because of them. As we can conclude, certainly during the recent attacks in Las Vegas. The author makes it very easy to understand the major themes of these selections by locating a lot of information in the title alone, and even more in the corresponding paragraph displayed below. This is where the author's true feelings and thesis lie. The title had hidden associations that misled readers about his true thoughts. Ivins concludes many reasons why alternative protection such as firearms or dogs should be used as opposed to the weapon of firearms. But I feel like she's just using these ideas as relevant topics rather than reality. She uses these words in the title to create non-traditional thoughts or conclusions that the audience might draw. I was certainly fooled, I thought this article would mainly be about how guns are bad and should be banned, as many other articles tend to do. However, the author argues that guns should be used, but people should be responsible and their sales should be monitored more thoroughly. I feel a great sense of credibility from this author. These readings are honest representations of the truth on these issues. I think the author succeeds in reaching his target audience by capturing their attention from the beginning. I think the purpose of this article is to show the importance of these questions. Gun violence is viewed in a completely irrational way, and harmful events affect people and not the object directly. It takes a person to sound a gun, therefore people must be carefully observed, not necessarily the object. Controversy is very definable when it comes to these issues. The audience certainly becomes aware of the author's point of view quite easily. And to some extent, relate to them as well. I know, personally, I did it. I think this selection is certainly compelling in nature. Many of the ideas presented by Ivins reveal these facts. The public, whether they are aware of it or not, is intrigued and persuaded to think one way or another after reading this selection. I think this idea is consistent with the opinions of other people who have read this article. Guns aren't necessarily bad in and of themselves, but rather people make bad choices. I feel much more informed about gun use in this country.