Mary Abigail Moreno

English 105.08

Professor B. Gill-Mayberry

5 February 2015

“The best writing is re-writing”: 2nd Draft, 2 Tutorials, and 1 Teacher Conference

Gun Control Critical Reading Journals

PRO:

Goddard, Colin. "The Background Check System Is Ineffective in Preventing Gun Violence." Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Testimony before the Crime Sub-Committee of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee,July 14 2010." Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.

          Colin Goddard, writer of the article “The Background Check System Is Ineffective in Preventing Gun Violence”, claims the importance of closing the gun control loopholes in the country. He provided convincing and legitimate evidences to support his claims, which includes a narration of his personal experience of buying guns from licensed and private sellers in different states. He argues current laws, such as the Brady Act of 1993, are ineffective in preventing gun violence because it does not require private sellers to conduct background checks before selling guns. Goddard uses a demanding tone and a familiar language in establishing his authority and presenting his claims to create a better connection with his audience. The writer is reasonable in his argument because he provides evidence before stating his claims. The argument is also logical because it is based on the facts and first-hand experiences of the writer. However, one fallacy committed by the writer is the failure of explaining a counter argument for his claim. Overall, the article convinced me that closing the gun control loopholes in the country is important, since the current laws are not strict enough to prevent gun violence. Furthermore, the author was successful in establishing his authority at the beginning of the article by narrating his personal experience of gun violence, which contributed to the persuasive purpose of the article.

 

PRO:

"Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives." Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Ten Myths About Gun Violence in America." LCAV.org. 2009. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.

          The writers of the article “Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives” claims stricter gun control laws should be enforced to reduce gun violence. They provided strong and objective evidences to support their claim, which includes statistical information, related to gun possessions and gun violence, and a legal case related to the issue of gun control. The writers argue that stronger gun control laws would contribute to gun violence prevention in the country. They presented evidences, which prove greater gun control possessions do not reduce gun violence rate. The writers of the article used an informative tone and concise language to directly convey their message to their audience. The writers were reasonable in their claim because they presented evidences that support and refute the enforcement of stricter gun control laws, such as statistical information related to gun violence and the “District of Columbia v. Heller” legal case in 2008, respectively. The arguments are logical because they are based on facts. Also, the writers did not commit any fallacies in writing. The article convinced me because it presented evidences, which supports the argument that stronger gun control laws could prevent gun violence, and carefully explained a very strong counter argument for their claim, such as the Second Amendment.

 

PRO:

DeFrancesco, Susan, et al. "Making guns safer." Issues in Science and Technology 14.4 (1998): 37+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.

          The writers of the article “Making guns safer” claims gun designs should be improved in order to prevent youth gun violence. They provided statistical evidences of children involvement with gun related crimes to support their claim for gun personalization. The writers explained how children could easily utilize guns. Therefore, an improvement in gun design is necessary. The writers used a persuasive tone and descriptive language, which can be evidently seen in the “advancing technology” portion of the article, to clearly explain their argument to the readers. The writers were reasonable in stating their claim, relating to gun violence and children involvement because of the statistical information provided to support these claims. Also, their argument is logical because it is based on facts and proposes a fairly effective and realistic solution in preventing youth gun violence. However, a fallacy committed by the writers in this article is the failure of their proposition to address the problem related to unrestricted private sellers, who can legally sell firearms to the youth. Overall, the article partly convinced me that gun “personalization” could prevent youth gun violence by children from utilizing guns easily. However, the proposed solution does not completely solve the problem of youth gun violence.

 

PRO:

"An Updated Background Check System Will Help Prevent Gun Violence." Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "A Plan to Prevent Future Tragedies." MayorsAgainstIllegalGuns.org. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.

          The writers of the article “An Updated Background Check System Will Help Prevent Gun Violence” claims gun control laws should be reinforced. They provided specific evidences, which includes statistical information and gun shooting occurrences, such as the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007, to support their claim that the current law is ineffective in preventing gun violence. The writers argue that there are various problems in the existing gun control laws, which includes unsystematic background checks and a gun control loophole involving private sellers, which causes increased gun violence despite the enforcement of these laws. Furthermore, they used an objective tone and concise language in writing the article, which created a stronger argument and better connection with the readers. The writers of the article were reasonable because each identified problem in the existing laws were cautiously analyzed and explained. Also, the argument was logical because the writers considered all aspects of the problem regarding loose gun control laws, and the evidences provided to support their claims were all based on facts. In addition, the writers did not commit any fallacy in writing. Overall, the article convinced me that existing gun control laws are ineffective and it is necessary to created stricter gun control laws in order to prevent gun violence. The writers explained that even though, current laws require background checks from gun buyers, individuals like Seung-Hui Cho and Jared Loughner were legally permitted to possess firearms, which lead to the death of numerous people.

 

PRO:

Children's Defense Fund. "Gun Crimes Cause Serious Harm to Children." Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Protect Children, Not Guns 2010." 20 Aug. 2010: 1-18. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.

           The writers of the article “ Gun Crimes Cause Serious Harm to Children” claims existing gun control laws are ineffective in protecting children from gun violence. They provided statistical evidences, such as youth gun violence rates, to support their claims. The writers argue that children are unprotected by existing gun laws, which can be evidently seen in increased youth gun violence rates, therefore, proper measures should be taken, such as “Gun-Free Homes” and “Gun Safety Measures”. The writers uses a persuasive and concise language in presenting their evidences and claims to establish a stronger argument and better connection with the audience. They are reasonable in their claim because they considered various aspects of the issue. Also, the argument presented is logical because it is adequately supported with evidences, such as statistical facts. Overall, the article convinced me that existing gun control laws are ineffective in protecting children from gun violence because youth involvement in such events are increasing and evidently seen. An example would be the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in 2013.

 

PRO:

Mitka, M. "Search for Ways to Reduce Gun Violence Spurred by Toll of Recent Shootings." Jama-journal of the American Medical Association, 309.8 (2013): 755-756.

          The writers of the article “Search for Ways to Reduce Gun Violence Spurred by Toll of Recent Shootings” claim the government should look for ways to reduce gun violence. They provided evidences, which include related events such as the Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting in 2012, to support their claim for gun violence prevention. The writers of the article mentioned some of the possible ways to reduce gun violence, such as improving background checks, banning sales of certain weapons, and funding research concerning gun violence, to prevent mass shootings from occurring. They used a direct tone and concise language, to present their propositions more clearly and to create a better connection with the audience. The writers are reasonable because the arguments presented are sufficiently supported with various evidences. Also, the argument is logical because it was based on facts and the proposed solutions address the issue of gun control as a whole. The writers did not commit any fallacy in writing because they discussed a counter argument for their reason, which was presented by Don Kates. Overall, the article convinced me that gun control should be reinforced because recent events, such as the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in 2012, proves existing gun control laws are ineffective.

 

PRO:

O'Reilly, Mollie Wilson. "Nothing to celebrate: guns & the culture of death." Commonweal 140.5 (2013): 6. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.

          The writer of the article “Nothing to celebrate: guns & the culture of death” claims guns and death are strongly connected. He provides evidences, which includes commentaries from opponents and supporters of gun control and gun violence events such as the Columbine High School and Sandy Hook Elementary shootings, to support his claim of increased gun violence rate. The writer argues that guns are designed to kill and recent mass shootings are only some of the cases to prove this. He implies that guns should be restricted in order to prevent casualties resulting from gun violence. Moreover, the writer uses a sympathetic tone and an informal language to create a better connection with the audience through the utilization of Pathos. The writer is reasonable because he sufficiently supported supporting arguments and carefully critiqued opposing arguments related to his claims. Also, the argument is logical because it is based on recent events and several statistical data. Furthermore, the writer did not commit any fallacy in writing. Overall, the article convinced me because it provides sufficient reasons and evidences that guns and death are strongly connected.

 

PRO:

"The Embarrassing Second Amendment." The Wilson Quarterly 24.2 (2000): 100. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.

          The writers of the article “The Embarrassing Second Amendment” claim a limited connection between gun control and the Second Amendment. They provided evidences, which includes statements from various people who supports and opposes gun control and some related court cases, to support their claims. The writers argue that even though the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms, the amendment is limited to an extent. Therefore, gun control laws can still be considered constitutional. The writers used a persuasive tone and formal language in presenting their evidences and claims to present a stronger argument and to create a better connection with their readers. Moreover, the writers are reasonable because they examined contradicting sides of the issue before making their claims. Also, the argument is logical because the claims presented were sufficiently supported and explained. However, a fallacy committed by the writers is the excessive use of commentaries in supporting their arguments. Overall, the article convinced me that gun control laws are not unconstitutional because the article clearly explained that the second amendment is not absolute.

 

PRO:

Dionne Jr, E.J. "Shot down: what's behind the Court's gun-control decision." Commonweal 135.13 (2008): 7. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.

          The writers of the article “Shot down: what's behind the Court's gun-control decision” claims gun control is constitutionally permitted. They provided several evidences, which include related court cases and judicial rulings, to support their claims. The writers argue that gun control is constitutional based on Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment as a collective right to bear arms and not an individual right. In addition, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, argues that majority of the court decisions related to gun violence at least permits some restrictions. Moreover, the writers used a concerned tone and familiar language to create a better connection with the readers and relay their claims more clearly. They are reasonable because sufficient evidences were provided to support their claims and both sides of the issue were considered. Also, the argument is logical because the claims were based on facts, such as actual court decisions. Furthermore, the writers did not commit any fallacy in writing. Overall, the article convinced me that gun control is constitutional because it provided evidences explaining the argument for absolute right to bear arms to be unfounded. Also, gun control laws are important because it protects people from gun violence.

 

CON:

Wright, Stephen E. "Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives." Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Anti-Gun Group Common Sense Gun Laws and Real Common Sense." StephenEWright.com. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.

          The writer of the article “Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives” claims gun control does not solve the problem on increasing gun violence. He provides evidences to support his claims, which includes statistical information and related gun violence events such as the Columbine High and Virginia Tech shootings. The writer argues gun control laws will not decrease gun violence rates because guns are not lethal without a violent owner. Therefore, restrictions should not be placed on guns. He uses a persuasive tone and familiar language to create a stronger argument and better connection with the readers. Moreover, the writer was reasonable because he carefully explained claims and refuted counter arguments. Also, he argument is logical because it is based on certain facts. Furthermore, the writer did not commit any fallacy in writing. Overall, the article presented a very good argument. However, it did not convince me that gun control laws would not save lives. Although the writer argued violence is founded on people with murderous minds and not on guns, stricter gun control laws will prevent these people from obtaining guns through improved background checks.

 

CON:

Kopel, David. "The untold triumph of concealed-carry permits." Policy Review 78 (1996): 9+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.

          The writer of the article “The untold triumph of concealed-carry permits” claims concealed-carry permits improved protection and decreased gun violence. He provides factual evidences, which includes statistical information and several surveys related to concealed-carry permits in various states, to support his claims. The writer argues claims of concealed-carry permits resulting to increased gun violence rates are unfounded but it certainly decreases gun violence, which was supported by sufficient evidences like the survey conducted by Dade County police officers. He used an objective tone and familiar language to create a stronger argument and better connection with the audience. The writer is reasonable because he carefully explained the claims presented and considered several counter arguments regarding the issue. Also, the argument is logical because it is based on facts and actual surveys. Furthermore, the writer did not commit any fallacies in writing. Overall, the article convinced me that concealed-carry permits decreases gun violence because it enables civilians to prevent crimes and protect themselves. However, gun control laws would not restrict citizens from obtaining concealed-carry permits but it would only improve necessary procedures, such as background checks, before issuing a permit to an individual.

 

CON:

Domenech, Benjamin. "The Truth About Mass Shootings and Gun Control: Crime and killings have fallen as gun ownership has increased." Commentary 135.2 (2013): 25+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.

          The writer of the article “The Truth About Mass Shootings and Gun Control” claims gun ownership decreases violence rates. He provides appropriate evidences, such as statistical data, related court cases, and examples of mass shootings, to support his claims. The writer argues that gun control laws are ineffective because statistical evidences, provided throughout the article, proves an increase in gun ownership yet a decrease in crime rates. He uses an emotional tone and descriptive language to create a stronger argument and establish a better connection with the audience by utilizing . Moreover, the writer is reasonable because sufficient reasons were provided to support the claims presented and both sides of the issue were considered. Also, the argument is logical because his evidences are based on statistical facts and other related events, such as the District of Columbia v. Heller case and the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. Furthermore, the writer did not commit any fallacy in writing. Overall, the article partly convinced me that gun ownership is beneficial because it decreases crime rates. However, gun controls should still be reinforced to create improved background checks on individuals aiming to possess firearms.