USA Gun Controls
- Provide a suggestion for changing or improving the introduction so that you are “hooked” to keep reading?
On page 1, you talk about the ease of acquiring a gun. I particularly thought it interesting that at one point people could receive guns via mail order. That may be something that could hook readers.
- What is the writer’s thesis (write it out here)? If he or she doesn’t have a thesis, suggest one.
Stricter gun controls are important in reducing gun related deaths prevalence in the US.
- Does the writer provide convincing reasons to support his or her argument? Highlight or copy here any that don’t and write the reason that they don’t.
I believe the reasons that you provide clearly support your argument.
- Does the writer provide adequate evidence to persuade readers? Highlight or copy here places that don’t and write the reason that they don’t.
I think cited examples of law abiding citizens, or stand out citizens, (page 5) who have turned to crime or committed gun related crimes would be appropriate. I think this would emphasize the unpredictability of gun possession, even among those that society deems capable.
- How does the author use the rhetorical appeals of pathos, logos, and ethos? In other words, does the writer persuade you emotionally and logically, and does he or she establish credibility in the writing?
I believe you use all rhetorical appeals in an effective manner. I believe your most prevalent method is the use of logical arguments. Also, you present numerous statistical findings from numerous sources, and I believe he does this through credible means. You use examples that appeal emotionally, such as the numerous gun related tragedies that have occurred in recent history.
- Where could the author be clearer with explanation of ideas?
On page 1, you talk about the number of restricting gun laws in America (~20 thousand). Is that a relatively large number or small number compared to other places?
You also mentioned other countries have lower gun related death than America. What are the rates of gun fatalities in those countries? Since they have stricter laws, have their historical fatality rates remained somewhat constant?
- Make suggestions for an improvement of the conclusion?
To me, the last sentence sort of introduces a new idea that may fit better near the beginning of the essay. I think this sentence establishes your stance of not trying to overhaul gun control laws, but rather broaden and enhancement them.
- Highlight or copy here any sentences that are unclear (grammatically) and need to be revised for clarity.
This sentence on page 1 confused me: “Of the fatalities, 18,735, 554 and 11,826 were suicides, accidental, and homicides or from legal related (Congressional Digest, 2013).” Not sure what exactly the numbers represents, or what is legal related.
This sentence on page 2 is a bit long, maybe break it up: “Some measures requiring background checks on buyers and instituting waiting periods before approval to purchase and licensing requirements entrenched by bodies such as the National Rifle Association gained prevalence in the wake of a renewed gun control focus (Meier, 1994).”
- What does the author do well? Praise what you think is effective about the essay.
I believe you did a good job of relating statistics to events throughout modern history. You paint a picture of wavering gun controls that seem to correlate with tragic instances. I think he solidly backs up the thesis.
- For the visual analysis, comment on if the image(s) articulates the writer’s position clearly or not, if it (they) represents the argument meaningfully, and if it is easy to interpret what the image(s) means. Make suggestions for improvement.
The images you used certainly depicted your stance. However, I think that your position on the subject is more articulated through the analysis than it is in the essay. From what I can gather from the analysis, your stance is a push for more restrictive guns laws to mitigate criminal use, but allow approved citizens to retain weapons for self-defense. The analysis helps validate the usage of the images, but the message concerning guns for self-defense was something I did not infer from the essay. Suggest maybe briefly explaining that guns are pivotal in self-defense, but it is a separate topic that does not apply to restricting guns to people with shady backgrounds?
- For the reflective analysis, comment on if the writer relates design choices to the purpose of the image(s) well or not and if he or she presents in-depth discussion of the rhetorical appeals and other relevant rhetorical considerations. Make suggestions as to how the writer can improve the analysis.
As stated before, the essay provides numerous logical arguments that use statistics to effectively inform readers of the correlation between gun control and fatalities. The image choice of the reader helps emphasize the emotional appeal by subjecting the reader to two possible outcomes of a frightening event. The design of the image is definitely powerful, and the text displayed suggests that worst and best possible outcomes during an attack. You do a good job of explaining what the image means, and gives examples of how one would feel if this happened to someone they knew.
Your argument should be targeted for a specific audience and developed using 2-3 audience-based reasons. These are reasons that are rooted in your audience’s values and beliefs, reasons that will sound the most convincing for them. You should also identify 2-3 counter-arguments your audience may raise to challenge you and respond to them by either refuting or conceding to them. You will participate in a relevant discussion board to help you with this audience requirement. You should use rhetorical appeals (logos, pathos, and ethos) effectively with your target audience and purpose in mind. Your tone and diction (word choice) should also be appropriate for this audience. Ask yourself how you will appeal to your audience’s intellect and make a logical argument, engage them emotionally and appeal to their values/beliefs, and how you will come across as a credible, trustworthy writer. The following questions need to be answered and this will be about gun controls but pro gun. * Question of fact: What happened to create more stringent gun control and when? Who was involved in setting up the stringent gun controls? * Question of definition: What were the major contributing factors to creating the more stringent gun controls? * Question of interpretation: How do new gun controls differ from the previous gun controls? * Question of consequence: What types of changes will gun owners face in the future to their gun rights? * Question of value: Does the stringent gun controls hurt legal gun owners? Will the stringent gun controls keep guns out of the illegal gun holders hands? * Question of policy: Do the stringent gun controls need to be reviewed to ensure legal gun owners do not lose their right to bear arms?
USA Gun Controls
Ricky Portier
English 102
Ebru Erdem
March 30, 2014
Studies indicate that the existence of firearms in a household elevates the chances of a firearm related death. They also indicate that the prevalence increases because such households register greater rates of domestic violence, alcohol, drug abuse among other risks related incidents as compared to the national average. This implies that firearm ownership increases the probability of fatalities (Kwon, Scott, Scott , & Bae, 2010). Stricter gun controls are important in reducing gun related deaths prevalence in the US.
Reports indicate that the rate of gun possession doubled between 1968 and 2009. Statistics by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) indicate high gun possession prevalence in US households. It indicated that approximately thirty five percent of the households owned one hundred and ninety two million firearms in 1994. Out of these 192 million firearms, sixty five million were handguns. By the year 2009, the number of firearms available to civilians increased to three hundred and ten million and one hundred of them were handguns. Reports further reflect consistent increase in firearms related fatalities. Fatalities increased by 3.2 percent from 2000 to 2001, and by 2.3 percent in 2002. In 2004 the number of firearms were at 29,570 but increased by 3.8 percent in 2005. They then increased by 1.1 percent for two consecutive years 2007 and 2008. They however decreased by 0.7 percent in 2009. Out of the total fatalities in 2009, eighteen thousand, seven hundred and thirty five resulted from suicides, five hundred and fifty four were accidental, and eleven thousand, eight hundred and twenty six resulted from homicides or legal measures (Congressional Digest, 2013).
The US has nearly twenty thousand laws for restricting the use of guns (Kwon, Scott, Scott , & Bae, 2010). This is a relatively high number of laws which indicates its commitment to controlling irresponsible gun use by its citizens. The US gun controls are among the most permissive globally and it is reported that at least four out of ten individuals in America own a gun. Americans are also split in half between those advocating for and those against the controls. Reports indicate that President J.F Kennedy’s assassination had previously stimulated public knowledge about the unavailability of government controls over firearms trade and possession in the US in 1963. In 1968, adults in any location in the nation were allowed to purchase guns over the counter or by mail order (Babat, 2009).
The Assassinations in Arizona and the failed attempt to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Gifford awakened the renewed focus on US gun controls (Wagner & Machnowski, 2011). Increased cases of violent crimes as evidenced by massacres such as the Newton shooting and Sandy Hook elementary school shooting occurring in many states in the US have also triggered renewed attention to disarm the general public (Meier, 1994). The Sandy Hook incident resulted in the murder of six staff and twenty children most of whom were first graders and Kindergarteners. Their parents must have been excited to see these children begin schooling. They were traumatized upon learning that a merciless criminal kill their innocent children before he committed suicide.
Gun control measures include regulatory restrictions on the manufacture, trade and ownership. In the future, gun owners will have to put up with the requirement for conducting background checks extended to shows and internet based sales. This is because background checks advocates such as Representative Gabrielle and others have vowed to adamantly push for the universal background checks even after the senate failed to pass the related bill in 2012. Some of the changes in the controls will include higher state requirements for scrutiny to the extent of obtaining fingerprinting at purchase, assessing batterer tendencies and other dangerous behavior to disqualify persons from firearm ownership.
In the wake of renewed focus on gun control, the National Rifle Association has been supporting several other measures. Some of them include mandatory screening to ensure buyers have criminally clean back grounds. They also support measures such as waiting times and licensing procedures before approving rifle purchases (Meier, 1994). The prevailing focus on gun control receives backing from different federal laws such as the second amendment to the constitution (Wagner & Machnowski, 2011). The law has provoked numerous cases aiming to overturn it.
Jim Brady was the brain behind the Brad law that established an instant criminal background check system to verify criminal and mental status of potential buyers. Brad’s motivation for the law stemmed from witnessing the failed attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981. A new law aimed at improving the system was enacted in 2008 requiring an improvement to the system after the massacre at Virginia Tech by a mentally unstable student took place in 2008 (Wagner & Machnowski, 2011).
The Assault weapons Ban enacted in 1994 expired in 2004. The law has not been reinstated and owners are now allowed to carry loaded firearms in previously banned locations. Some students have also lodged a call to allow them to carry hidden weapons in university for self -defense. Reports show that 38 states allow individuals to carry hidden weapons without the need to offer a rationale, ten states require that one provide a justification and only Illinois and Wisconsin prohibit persons from carrying hidden weapons (Wagner & Machnowski, 2011). A push for its reinstatement was triggered by Rep. Giffords’ shooting incident in Arizona in 2011 but it was unsuccessful (Wagner & Machnowski, 2011). The perpetrator of the Arizona shooting Jared Lee Loughery had bought a large capacity ammunition magazine that could hold thirty rounds. His firearm would have been unlawful to purchase before the assault weapon ban expiry in 2004.
Gun controls are imperative in curtailing the rising rates of fatalities instigated through firearms. Going by the statistics, it is very tragic that many Americans are not moved when shootings occur and are reluctant to seek a solution to the menace. Admittedly, many Americans concede that such incidents are tragic but they quickly move on after the incidents. The statistics indicating that six hundred and six people were murdered in 2010 with sixty two of them being children killed by accident should be enough to cause Americans collective jitters and stimulate an ardent resolve to the solution (Goldberg, 2012). It is disheartening that Americans are too immersed in individualism to care about solutions for the collective good of the country. With stricter gun control laws, perpetrators of such heinous acts may be mitigated. Collective societal actions are the most effective in keeping American children safe. It also helps to reduce suicide rates that occur without rational thinking because suicidal actions occur at the spur of the moment and accessibility to firearms increases their success rates. The Sandy Hook incident is a good example as it is reported that the perpetrator’s mother was a gun enthusiast. She would allow her son into shooting ranges and at 20 years old, her son murdered her, twenty children and six adults and then committed suicide (Thompson, 2014).
Research has shown that states with tighter gun control laws register significantly low rates of fatalities as compared to those with lax policies. In 2009 and 2010, California, Connecticut and Hawaii ranked ninth, sixth and fifth respectively in the lowest gun related death rates in the US as ranked by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. These three states have the strongest gun control laws in the US. On the contrary, the highest death rates in the nation occurred in Alaska and Montana, which are the states that have the least strict gun control laws. This report is sufficient indication of the correlation between stricter gun control poli...