Gun Control in America
Aristotelian Classical Argumentative Rhetoric
Trey Nicholas
Dr. Gill-Mayberry
ENG 2105
27 October 2020
Trey Nicholas: Best Rewrite (Grade this version only)
“The best writing is rewriting:” Best Rewrite 14 Draft(s); 10 Tutorial(s) (Peer Mentor Robert, WC Tyler Walker, WC Maria Acero); 2 Teacher conference(s)
(Provocative Title) Restrictive Gun Laws: A Futile Approach to Gun Violence
(Hook) Provoked by gun control in United States (US) society, Lance Stell, associate of Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics and author of “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?”, argues, “[s]trict gun control institutionalizes the natural predatory advantages of larger, stronger, violence-prone persons or gangs of such persons” (45). (Bridge) Stell suggests enforcing new legislation to combat the tragic shootings will be futile in promoting the security of US society. (Divided Stasis/Thesis Sentence) (Opponent’s Claim Informed by Three Scholarly Sources) Although proponents of gun control claim gun violence will be curbed by stricter gun regulations, (Rhetor’s Main Claim Informed by Nine Scholarly Sources) strict gun control measures will inadvertently provoke an unsafe environment for all US citizens because (Reason/Support 1) increasing gun scarcity does not affect homicide and suicide rates, (Reason/Support 2) restricting the Second Amendment will not affect criminal-use of firearms, and (Reason/Support 3) incorporating restrictive gun laws do not consider the well-being of mentally ill US citizens.
(Narration) On May 4, 1992, the Los Angeles riots precipitated the debate on whether the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, should be restricted in US society. This six-day riot, consisting of “malice and a wish to loot,” alarms Jeremy Putley, author of “The Moral Vacuum and the American Constitution,” who blames the violence on the Second Amendment (71). Today, many American legislators target the Second Amendment since the passage of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 even though “[they] have regularly introduced bills on firearms in successive sessions of the US Congress and also in state legislators'' (Singh 290). Opponents of gun control believe implementing constitutional revisions is needless in reducing gun violence in US society. Opponents also believe improving institutional reforms is the proper response to the anarchy present in US society. As Stell contends, “[a]n ethically legitimate state must recognize and respect equally the fundamental, individual right to bodily integrity, which includes a fundamental, serious right to self-defense” (44). Contrastively, proponents of gun control believe advocating for tighter restrictions on the Second Amendment will generate greater security in US society. What critical proponents do not understand is restricting the Second Amendment will endanger US citizens.
(Confirmation) With many US citizens having to protect themselves from the violence caused by the Los Angeles riots in 1992, strict gun regulations will deprive citizens of their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness against the unending violence. According to Singh’s provocative essay, “Gun Control in America,” firearm regulation “...is not about firearms as such, but about freedom from, and against, the state” (1). We need to reject firearm regulation and embrace the God given rights we have as Americans to be safe. Just as Stell understood the dangers of violent-prone Americans, the path to a safer US society needs to be one with legal access to firearms to stem the tide of violence.
(Concession/Refutation) It is, indeed, true that many US Citizens claim they want stricter gun control to prevent gun violence in US society. (Scholarly Source 1) A proponent of gun control, Michael V. McQuiller, editor-in-chief of Volume 52 of the University of San Francisco Law Review, demands, “expanded background checks for firearm purchases and mandated active shooter emergency planning, as well as additional funding for armed school resource officers who can rapidly respond to an on-campus shooter” (4). McQuiller asserts US Congress needs to implement tighter restrictions to prevent mass shootings such as Sandy Hook Elementary School. (Scholarly Source 2) Another proponent of gun control, Jacob Smith, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, argues, “[t]his disagreement over [gun control and mental illness] makes it difficult to enact legislation at the federal level to address gun violence, even though the disparity in gun deaths by state might suggest that implementing the same policies across the country would help those states that suffer disproportionately from gun violence” (1). Smith articulates rather than focusing specifically on gun control, US society needs to consider gun control and mental health services to combat the high gun fatalities. (Scholarly Source 3) More proponents of gun control, Michael Luca and colleagues, associates of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, argue, “[w]aiting periods, which create a ‘cooling off’ period among buyers, significantly reduce the incidence of gun violence” (1). Luca and colleagues assert delaying gun purchases will prevent the opportunity for US citizens to conduct an impulsive, gun-violent act. (Conclusion) In sum, proponents suggest enforcing stricter gun legislation will effectively combat firearm violence in US society. (Refutation: Rhetor’s Main Claim and Support 1) But, incorporating any form of gun regulations will destabilize the US society’s safety because stricter gun control will not affect homicide and suicide rates. (Toulmin Warrant) Stripping guns from US society will grant more power to the criminal and less power to the victim. (Scholarly Source 1: Reason/Support 1) As aforementioned, staunch opponent of gun control, Lance Stell, associate of Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, advocates for less gun regulations. In “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?”, Stell contends, “[c]ountries known for having very restrictive gun policies and for having much lower gun prevalence than the United States (for examples, Hungary, Denmark, Austria, Norway, and France) nevertheless have persistently higher suicide rates, notwithstanding that a comparatively low percentage are committed with guns” (39). Stell demonstrates the futility of restrictive gun policies by revealing unwavering statistics on suicide rates across the globe who promote gun scarcity. (Scholarly Source 2: Reason/Support 1) Another opponent of gun control, Stephen P. Halbrook, attorney at law, responds to New York’s SAFE Act, essentially claiming the SAFE Act’s predecessor in 1994 failed at “defining and restricting ‘semiautomatic assault weapons’” as “neither the federal law nor its expiration had any effect on the homicide rate, which had been falling since almost two years before the enactment of the law in September 1994 and has continued to remain low since the law expired in 2004” (790). Halbrook asserts restricting semi-automatic assault weapons will not decrease homicide rates; rather, greater gun restrictions offer US citizens less protection to defend themselves against perpetrators in US society. (Scholarly Source 3: Reason/Support 1) Another opponent of gun control, Barry Latzer, Professor Emeritus of Criminal Justice and author of “The Futility of Gun Control as Crime Control,” claims, “[e]stimates for incidents of the defensive use of guns in most national surveys range from 500,000 to more than 3 million annually, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms (2008)” (289). Latzer asserts the majority of US citizens use firearms to defend themselves than for immoral use; therefore, homicide rates will expect to increase if law-abiding citizens have no legal access to firearms. (Conclusion) Simply, stricter gun control is not a legitimate approach to reduce homicide and suicide rates in US society.
(Refutation: Reason/Support 2) Restricting the Second Amendment will not affect criminal-use of firearms; instead, law-abiding US citizens will become more vulnerable to firearm attacks. (Toulmin Warrant) Denying the US society’s constitutional right to bear arms will catalyze the society’s regression into a hierarchy dominated by criminals. (Scholarly Source 1: Reason/Support 2) As aforementioned, gun control opponent, Stephen P. Halbrook, attorney at law and author of “The Right to Bear Arms: For Me, but Not for Thee?”, contends, “[t]he words of the Second Amendment alone seem to be conclusive about that—a right to keep arms and a right to bear arms. These are two distinct rights: keeping arms would obviously include keeping them at home. ‘Bear’ means nothing if it means you can only carry arms in your home. It has to mean something more than that” (331). Halbrook asserts firearms must be supported outside the home for self-defense, hunting, and militia activities in US society. (Scholarly Source 2: Reason/Support 2) Another gun control opponent, Renée Lerner, research professor of law at George Washington University Law School and author of “The Second Amendment and the Spirit of the People,” argues, “[o]f all the rights in the US Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms most reflects the spirit of a free people. It is the spirit of resisting oppression. That oppression can come in different forms: oppression by the government, and oppression by private thugs” (319). Lerner asserts the Second Amendment grants US citizens justified measures to strike back at violators to preserve the spirit of freedom in US society. (Scholarly Source 3: Reason/Support 2) As aforementioned, gun control opponent, Robert Singh, associate of the Department of Politics at Birkbeck, clarifies the misconception of the Second Amendment claiming, “the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organised state militia; it does not guarantee… an unrestricted individual entitlement to private ownership of guns” (291). Rather than receiving, legal gun owners earn entitlement to privately own firearms for protection in US society because the legal process of owning a gun requires extensive background checks to verify a US citizen’s morality. (Conclusion) Clearly, restricting the Second Amendment will strip US citizens from the legal means to defend themselves.
(Refutation: Reason/Support 3) Incorporating restrictive gun regulations fail to consider those who are susceptible to conducting firearm violence in US society: the mentally ill. (Toulmin Warrant) Disregarding mentally ill US citizens paint a negative stereotype for the mentally ill when they simply need treatment to achieve stability. (Scholarly Source 1: Reason/Support 3) Gun restricting opponents, Carolyn Wolf and Jamie Rosen, associates of Abrams Fensterman and authors of “Missing the Mark: Gun Control Is Not the Cure for What Ails the US Mental Health System,” argue, “[r]ecent gun control legislation aimed at removing guns from the hands of the mentally ill in order to reduce violence is misguided. In fact, this only contributes to the mistaken belief that there is a direct link between mental illness and violence” (851). Rather than futile gun control measures, establishing community programs and increasing awareness of mental health issues in US society allow for early detection and intervention for mentally ill US citizens. Furthermore, the social stigma associated with the mentally ill in US society needs to be reassessed to understand and help the mentally ill who are susceptible to gun violence. (Scholarly Source 2: Reason/Support 3) Another gun restricting opponent, Jeffrey Taxman, associate of International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies and author of “Gun Violence in America – A Tri‐Vector Model,” claims, “[a] good, stable, attachment to a primary caregiver not only attenuates internal anxiety but also allows for the appropriate [development]... of both empathy and correct discernment of reasoning and intent in self and others” (1). Having a stable attachment to their caregiver, US citizens can effectively develop cognitively, socially, and culturally to avoid regressing into a primitive state where they will cause destruction via gun violence in US society. (Scholarly Source 3: Reason/Support 3) Another gun restricting opponent, James Lindgren, associate of Northwestern University School of Law and author of “Forward: The Past and Future of Guns,” argues, “[t]here is almost no evidence that violence-prevention programs intended to steer children away from guns have had any effects on their behavior, knowledge, or attitudes regarding firearms” (710). Lindgren asserts the measures currently in place to deter young US citizens from gun violence is minimal; rather, counseling services must be amended to help US citizens understand the impact gun violence has on US society so citizens will become ethical, law-abiding individuals. (Conclusion) Ultimately, focusing more on the mentally ill US citizens is a greater alternative to reducing gun violence in US society rather than constructing gun regulations.
(Summation: Argue that your stance on the issue is best for US society) Retaining the right to bear arms is best for US society because firearms will prevent mass shootings, robberies, and intrusions in US society, thereby promoting safety for US citizens during events such as the Los Angeles riots in 1992. During the riots, small business owners were able to protect themselves and their integrity against looters because the Second Amendment authorizes the US right to bear arms. Withdrawing the legal access to firearms during the riots would have resulted in law-abiding, small business owners being exploited devastatingly by looters because they would have no effective means to protect and preserve their foundation. We now see the right to bear arms must be cherished and respected to embrace our freedom from not only the state, but from nefarious US citizens as well. America’s Founding Fathers manifested the right to bear arms deliberately to preserve freedom. We cannot regress and diminish the strength of US society by unauthorizing US citizens from legally possessing firearms. Instead, we must progress and learn to respect the power of firearms.
Works Cited
Halbrook, Stephen P. “New York's Not so ‘SAFE’ Act: The Second Amendment in an
Alice-In-Wonderland World Where Words Have No Meaning.” EBSCOhost, Albany Law Review, 1 Apr. 2015,
Halbrook, Stephen P. “The Right to Bear Arms: For Me, but Not for Thee?” EBSCOhost,
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 1 Apr. 2020, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=14&sid=401e6a83-1f36-
4a5e-a533-bad5a471761f%40sdc-v-sessmgr02.
Latzer, Barry. “The Futility of Gun Control as Crime Control.” EBSCOhost, Academic
Questions, 1 June 2019, https://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=625f9f4c-23e1-47f0-a0fc-
37130fb04aef%40pdc-v-sessmgr02.
Lerner, Renée. “The Second Amendment and the Spirit of the People.” EBSCOhost, Harvard
Journal of Law & Public Policy, 1 Apr. 2020, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=10&sid=15fa9bb0-e470-481b-
8b77-b4707c8d060a%40sdc-v-sessmgr03.
Lindgren, James. “Forward: The Past and Future of Guns.” EBSCOhost, Journal of Criminal
Law & Criminology, 1 Oct. 2015, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=12&sid=5024350f-2a7a-485d-865d-
0e3268a0a60a%40sdc-v-sessmgr02.
Luca, Michael et al. “Handgun Waiting Periods Reduce Gun Deaths.” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, CPP Library, Oct. 2017, https://www-pnas-org.proxy.library.cpp.edu/content/114/46/12162.
McQuiller, Michael V. “Enough is Enough: Congressional Solutions to Curb Gun Violence in
America’s K-12 Schools.” DePaul Journal for Social Justice, Vol. 12, Iss. 1, 2019, pp. 1-21. https://via.library.depaul.edu/jsj/vol12/iss1/2/.
Putley, Jeremy. “The Moral Vacuum and the American Constitution.” EBSCOhost, Political
Quarterly, 1 Jan. 1997, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=10&sid=15fa9bb0-e470-481b-8b77-
b4707c8d060a%40sdc-v-sessmgr03.
Singh, Robert. “Gun Control in America.” EBSCOhost, Political Quarterly, July 1998,
Smith, Jacob. “Explaining Gun Deaths: Gun Control, Mental Illness, and Policymaking in the
American States.” Wiley Online Library, PSJ , Feb. 2020, https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/doi/full/10.1111/psj.12242.
Stell, Lance. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the
Solution.” EBSCOhost, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Mar. 2004, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=5&sid=0cf752b5-9b25-4a25-bb24-ae71897a5b51@sessionmgr4006.
Taxman, Jeffrey. “Gun Violence in America – A Tri‐Vector Model.” Wiley Online Library,
International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, June 2016, https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/doi/full/10.1002/aps.1490.
Wolf, Carolyn, and Jamie A. Rosen. “Missing the Mark: Gun Control Is Not the Cure for What
Ails the U.S. Mental Health System.” EBSCOhost, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 1 Oct. 2015,
https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=5024350f-2a7a-485d-865d-0e3268a0a60a%40sdc-v-sessmgr02.
Trey Nicholas
Dr. Gill-Mayberry
ENG 2105
15 September 2020
“The best writing is rewriting:” 3 Draft(s); 2 Tutorial(s) (Peer Mentor Robert; WC Tyler Walker); 1 Teacher conference(s)
Prewriting:
Step 1: Who is my audience?
My audience is those who believe gun control should be stricter, or are unsure what to believe about gun control. Those who share my perspective that gun control should be left untouched can also be my audience, but this paper is not designed to reinforce confirmation biases; rather it is designed to reinforce formerly held beliefs.
Step 2: What is my purpose?
My purpose is to convince those who think differently that I am correct in believing gun control should remain less strict.
Step 3: What is my premise?
My premise is gun control should remain less strict for several reasons, including the effects of gun scarcity, the Second Amendment, and increased citizen vulnerability. First, gun scarcity does not promote lower homicide/suicide rates. Second, the Second Amendment of The Constitution of the United States protects individual gun ownership to preserve the security of a free state. Third, citizens will become more vulnerable and susceptible to harm from gun-related attacks.
Step 4: What is my chosen quotation?
My quotation is, “[s]trict gun control institutionalizes the natural predatory advantages of larger, stronger, violence-prone persons or gangs of such persons” (45).
Trey Nicholas
Dr. Gill-Mayberry
ENG 2105
22 September 2020
Pro 1:
“The best writing is rewriting:” 3 Draft(s); 2 Tutorial(s) (Robert, WC Maria Acero); 0 Teacher conference(s)
McQuiller, Michael V. “Enough is Enough: Congressional Solutions to Curb Gun Violence in America’s K-12 Schools.” DePaul Journal for Social Justice, Vol. 12, Iss. 1, 2019, pp. 1-21. https://via.library.depaul.edu/jsj/vol12/iss1/2/.
Key Quote: “Congress should do everything in its power to prevent shootings in our nation’s K-12 schools” (4).
(Provocative Title) Mass Shootings: A New Norm
(Unity/Topic Sentence) The article, “Enough is Enough: Congressional Solutions to Curb Gun Violence in America’s K-12 Schools,” written by Michael V. McQuiller, argues for Congress to impose specific regulations to reduce the likelihood of mass shootings in America’s K-12 schools. (Adequate Development/Body) McQuiller begins by demanding, “expanded background checks for firearm purchases and mandated active shooter emergency planning, as well as additional funding for armed school resource officers who can rapidly respond to an on-campus shooter” (4). He further supports his credibility by synthesizing contemporary examples such as the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. McQuiller uses that specific case because Congress failed to act on the infamy and the government’s response was only temporarily viable. McQuiller proceeds into the specific policies that grant Congress full authority in tightening gun control legally, including the Necessary and Proper Clause, Commerce Clause, and Spending Clause. (Coherence/Conclusion) With the abundance of mass shootings occurring in America, McQuiller justifies Congress is our only hope in deviating from this new norm.
Pro 2:
“The best writing is rewriting:” 4 Draft(s); 3 Tutorial(s) (Peer Mentor Robert, WC Maria Acero); 0 Teacher conference(s)
Smith, Jacob. “Explaining Gun Deaths: Gun Control, Mental Illness, and Policymaking in the American States.” Wiley Online Library, PSJ , Feb. 2020, https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/doi/full/10.1111/psj.12242.
Key Quote: “This disagreement over causes makes it difficult to enact legislation at the federal level to address gun violence, even though the disparity in gun deaths by state might suggest that implementing the same policies across the country would help those states that suffer disproportionately from gun violence” (1).
(Provocative Title) Uniting the Disagreement Over Gun Control
(Unity/Topic Sentence) In, “Explaining Gun Deaths: Gun Control, Mental Illness, and Policymaking in the American States,” Jacob Smith wants to fuse the disparity of Americans wanting tougher gun laws and others wanting greater access to mental health services in order to improve America’s security. (Adequate Development/Body) Smith finds “a combination of both approaches are associated with a lower overall rate of gun deaths, and with a lower rate of nonsuicide gun deaths” (1). To support his claim, Smith acknowledges every time a mass shooting occurs, “politicians, policymakers, interest groups, and others” argue predominantly between gun control laws and mental health, thus making it difficult to enact legislation addressing gun violence (1). Rather, Smith wants policymakers to focus on uniting the subjects as they are both theorized to be the solution to mass shootings. Smith claims reinforcing gun control methods, such as improving background checks, lead to a “statistically [significant]... reduction of gun fatalities” (1). Since “90 percent of suicides with a firearm are committed by men,” Smith claims reinforcing mental health services will lead to less people being subjected to suicide by firearm (1). (Conclusion/Coherence) Overall, Smith wants to unite these solutions as both target the same problem, and by performing a combined approach will lead to even greater security for America.
Pro 3:
“The best writing is rewriting:” 4 Draft(s); 2 Tutorial(s) (Peer Mentor Robert, WC Maria Acero); 0 Teacher conference(s)
Luca, Michael et al. “Handgun Waiting Periods Reduce Gun Deaths.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, CPP Library, Oct. 2017, https://www-pnas-org.proxy.library.cpp.edu/content/114/46/12162.
Key quote: “Waiting period laws that delay the purchase of firearms by a few days reduce gun homicides by roughly 17%” (1).
(Provocative Title) Waiting Just Might Save Us
(Unity/Topic Sentence) In, “Handgun Waiting Periods Reduce Gun Deaths,” Michael Luca et al. claim, “Waiting periods, which create a ‘cooling off’ period among buyers, significantly reduce the incidence of gun violence” (1). (Adequate Development/Body) Luca et al. support their claim stating, “There has been no meaningful reduction in the US firearm-related death rate for more than a decade” (1). This concerns Luca et al. as “more than 33,000 people die in gun-related incidents each year in the United States, accounting for as many deaths as motor vehicle accidents” (1). Given their research, Luca et al. claim, “delaying a gun purchase could create a ‘cooling off’ period that reduces violence by postponing firearm acquisitions until after a visceral state has passed”; therefore removing the window of opportunity to conduct an impulsive, chaotic act (1). Luca et al. proceeded to conduct research on waiting period laws in the U.S. between 1970 and 2014 to justify the effectiveness of waiting periods. They found waiting periods “lead to a 7–11% reduction in gun suicides” (1). The Brady Act was a key component in their research as the few states who enforced the act had significant reductions in gun violence compared to the states that did not. (Coherence/Conclusion) Even though waiting periods offer a fractional cause in reducing gun violence, Luca et al. indicates that it is something worth improving as waiting can save the victim and the perpetrator.
Con 1:
“The best writing is rewriting:” 4 Draft(s); 2 Tutorial(s) (Peer Mentor Robert, WC Maria Acero); 0 Teacher conference(s)
Stell, Lance. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution.” EBSCOhost, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Mar. 2004, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=0cf752b5-9b25-4a25-bb24-ae71897a5b51@sessionmgr4006.
Key Quote: “Countries known for having very restrictive gun policies and for having much lower gun prevalence than the United States (for examples, Hungary, Denmark, Austria, Norway, and France) nevertheless have persistently higher suicide rates, notwithstanding that a comparatively low percentage are committed with guns” (39).
(Provocative Title) Taking Away the Gun does not Take Away the Murderer
(Unity/Topic Sentence) In, “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?,” Lance K. Stell emphasizes how promoting gun scarcity will not decrease America’s homicide rate. (Adequate Development/Body) To support his credibility, Stell references various countries such as Hungary and France that are known for their tight gun policies and gun scarcity to have “persistently higher suicide rates, notwithstanding that a comparatively low percentage are committed with guns” (39). He further supports his claim noting, “over the period 1993-2002, the non-fatal, firearm-related violent victimization rate fell to the lowest level ever recorded,” and firearms were not at all scarce during that time (41). Stell is illustrating how homicides conducted via firearms are highly variable and cannot be the sole reason for high homicide rates. Stell proceeds to paint a picture of how society will crumble and divide without firearms because given we have a serious right to self-defense, “strict gun control institutionalizes the natural predatory advantages of larger, stronger, violence-prone persons or gangs of such persons” (45). Stell also notes the poor will not have access to the protection the wealthy will have, such as bodyguards and walls, therefore institutionalizing inequality “for each citizen’s fundamental interest in bodily integrity” (45). (Coherence/Conclusion) Ultimately, Stell warns us that stripping society of firearms will offer consistent if not rising homicide rates because taking away the gun does not take away the murderer.
Con 2:
“The best writing is rewriting:” 4 Draft(s); 2 Tutorial(s) (Peer Mentor Robert, WC Maria Acero); 0 Teacher conference(s)
Singh, Robert. “Gun Control in America.” EBSCOhost, Political Quarterly, July 1998, https://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=9&sid=012d04e2-bc28-4633-b564-9361bae09a04@pdc-v-sessmgr02.
Key Quote: “It is not constitutional overhaul that is necessary, but more modest institutional reforms and public education that together are a central to changing the prospects for more stringent firearms regulation” (1).
(Provocative Title) The Misinterpretation on Gun Control
(Unity/Topic Sentence) In, “Gun Control in America,” Robert Singh claims that gun legislation we try to pass is myopic “because of the popularity of gun ownership, the Second Amendment, and the institutional architecture of the American polity” (1). (Adequate Development/Body) Singh counters Putley, who he believes has a severely flawed idea in addressing gun control. Putley asserts the Second Amendment grants us “individual entitlement to private ownership of guns,” but Singh understands the amendment’s true intention is to organize a state militia (1). While further explaining the gun crisis, Singh supports his stance by introducing the pro-gun force’s claim, “gun control is not about firearms as such, but about freedom from, and against, the state” (1). He recognizes there are too many competing factors that have greater authority over the miniscule gun control regulations Putley demands for. Even during tragic shootings, Singh claims America holds momentary passion for the victims, but that feeling soon perishes into apathy, therefore “we are rendered impotent in the face of structural, systemic defects in the American model” (1). To further promote his case, Singh claims the federal legislature is incapacitated to effectively address gun control because they grow alarmingly trepid at the sight of “the consequences of antagonising not only the gun lobby but, through them, gun owners at large” (1). (Coherence/Conclusion) All in all, Singh is demonstrating that we have been approaching gun control erroneously, and “constitutional overhaul” is not entirely the solution to what is at stake (1).
Con 3:
“The best writing is rewriting:” 4 Draft(s); 2 Tutorial(s) (Peer Mentor Robert, WC Maria Alcero); 0 Teacher conference(s)
Taxman, Jeffrey. “Gun Violence in America – A Tri‐Vector Model.” Wiley Online Library, International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, June 2016, https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/doi/full/10.1002/aps.1490.
Key Quote: “While I believe the Tri‐Vector model of gun violence is heuristically satisfying, its greatest benefit will be in decreasing future gun violence, particularly future active shooter events, gang related deaths, and possibly domestic murders. This could be accomplished by intervening in any or all of the three vectors described here” (1).
(Provocative Title) Mental Precautions of Gun Violence
(Unity/Topic Sentence) In, “Gun Violence in America – A Tri-Vector Model,” Jeffrey Taxman claims, “the Tri-Vector model of gun violence… will be in decreasing future gun violence… by intervening in any or all of the three vectors” (1). (Adequate Development/Body) Taxman understands the rising gun violence in America will not be adequately solved by implementing gun control legislation. Taxman initiates his stance by explaining how “an individual transforms an unthinkable act – the apparent random mass shooting of human beings that have no direct connection to the perpetrator – into a permissible, or even heroic one” via three vectors: developmental, cultural, and social (1). As he explains the internal development vector, he claims, “poor, anxiety‐ridden, non‐existent, or abusive attachment figures would disrupt the development of stable and accurate mentalizing” (1). Such an abused mind can provoke an individual to regress into a primitive state where he believes he can control reality’s rules and morals; therefore, Taxman infers that a “good, stable, attachment to a primary caregiver not only attenuates internal anxiety but also allows for the appropriate [development]... of both empathy and correct discernment of reasoning and intent in self and others” (1). Taxman believes that a majority of these shooters have regressed and are prone to social influences. (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, Taxman’s Tri-Vector model offers a deep understanding of the complex forces influencing gun violence which can be greatly mitigated “by intervening in any or all of the three vectors” (1).
Con 4:
“The best writing is rewriting:” 2 Draft(s); 0 Tutorial(s); 0 Teacher conference(s)
Halbrook, Stephen P. “The Right to Bear Arms: For Me, but Not for Thee?” EBSCOhost, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 1 Apr. 2020, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=14&sid=401e6a83-1f36-4a5e-a533-bad5a471761f%40sdc-v-sessmgr02.
Key Quote: “...a right to keep arms and a right to bear arms. These are two distinct rights: keeping arms would obviously include keeping them at home. “Bear” means nothing if it means you can only carry arms in your home. It has to mean something more than that (331).
(Provocative Title) Carrying Firearms with Liberty
(Unity/Topic Sentence) In response to Second Amendment opponents, Stephen P. Halbrook, attorney at law, argues, “[t]he words of the Second Amendment alone seem to be conclusive about that—a right to keep arms and a right to bear arms. These are two distinct rights: keeping arms would obviously include keeping them at home. ‘Bear’ means nothing if it means you can only carry arms in your home. It has to mean something more than that” (331). (Adequate Development/Body) Halbrooks urges the necessity for possessing firearms outside of one’s home claiming, “the Second Amendment has the militia clause, but for the people who lived at the time of the Founding, even more important to them was the right to carry arms for self-defense and for hunting. You don’t go hunting in your home, you may or may not have to defend yourself in the home, and certainly militia activities do not take place in the home” (333). Furthermore, Halbrook argues the Second Amendment does not explicitly state guns are designed to stay at home as “[t]he word ‘houses’ appears in the Fourth Amendment in terms of search and seizure issues. So, when restricting an activity to the home, the Bill of Rights plainly says so” (331). To further support his claim that firearms were destined to be handled outside the home, Halbrooks includes the Freedman’s Bureau Act of 1866, explicitly declaring “rights to personal security and personal liberty include the right to bear arms… which included the right to carry arms outside the home” (334). Additionally, Halbrook claims, under the Speech and Press Clauses, “types of weapons, if they’re commonly possessed by law-abiding people for lawful purposes, or typically possessed for lawful purposes, are protected by the Second Amendment” (334-5). (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, Halbrook essentially claims we have the God-given right to carry our firearms with liberty outside the home.
Con 5:
“The best writing is rewriting:” 2 Draft(s); 0 Tutorial(s); 0 Teacher conference(s)
Halbrook, Stephen P. “New York's Not so ‘SAFE’ Act: The Second Amendment in an Alice-In-Wonderland World Where Words Have No Meaning.” EBSCOhost, Albany Law Review, 1 Apr. 2015, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=18&sid=401e6a83-1f36-4a5e-a533-bad5a471761f%40sdc-v-sessmgr02.
Key Quote: “The arguments that seek to justify the SAFE Act reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic nature of the right to keep and bear arms and of the characteristics of the actual firearms and their features that are prohibited” (816).
(Provocative Title) The Irony of Going “SAFE”
(Unity/Topic Sentence) In response to New York’s SAFE Act, Stephen P. Halbrook, attorney at law, claims, “[t]he arguments that seek to justify the SAFE Act reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic nature of the right to keep and bear arms and of the characteristics of the actual firearms and their features that are prohibited” (816). (Adequate Development/Body) Halbrooks announces the shocking similarities New York’s SAFE Act has compared to Congress’s 1994 failed law “defining and restricting ‘semiautomatic assault weapons’” as “neither the federal law nor its expiration had any effect on the homicide rate, which had been falling since almost two years before the enactment of the law in September 1994 and has continued to remain low since the law expired in 2004” (790). However, New York’s SAFE Act alarms Halbrook because “‘[t]hrough this legislation, New York is the first in the nation to completely ban… any magazine that holds more than seven rounds (rather than a limit of ten) . . . .’ Even as amended to allow seven rounds in a ten-round magazine, this law… is “unusual.” As for being “dangerous,” a magazine in itself is not even a weapon” (807). To further support the peculiarity of such ban, Halbrook claims, “while handguns, which may have magazines of varying capacities, are used in most firearm homicides, “the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon.” (807) Additionally, Halbrook argues “[t]hat standard magazines are well-suited and preferred for self-defense is demonstrated by the fact that they are issued to law enforcement and are bought by law-abiding citizens who also use them for target shooting, competitions, and other sporting activities” (808). To support his stance, Halbrook introduces “the famous case of Linda Riss, who was repeatedly denied police protection against threatened harm and who was then viciously attacked… ‘[I]n conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her’” (808). Considering Linda Riss, Halbrook emphasizes the importance of possessing these firearms legally for Americans to be secure. (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, Halbrook essentially claims New York’s SAFE Act will inadvertently rupture mayhem through New York’s streets because Americans will be stripped from legally accessing firearm protection.
Con 6:
“The best writing is rewriting:” 2 Draft(s); 0 Tutorial(s); 0 Teacher conference(s)
Latzer, Barry. “The Futility of Gun Control as Crime Control.” EBSCOhost, Academic Questions, 1 June 2019, https://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=625f9f4c-23e1-47f0-a0fc-37130fb04aef%40pdc-v-sessmgr02.
Key Quote: “Any campaign to further reduce crime through gun control... will not work” (292).
(Provocative Title) Re-Evaluating Gun Crime Issues
(Unity/Topic Sentence) In response to stricter gun regulations, Barry Latzer, author of The Rise and Fall of Violent Crime in America, claims, “[a]ny campaign to further reduce crime through gun control... will not work” (292). (Adequate Development/Body) According to the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, Latzer claims, “defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence” (289). Furthermore, Latzer states, “[e]stimates for incidents of the defensive use of guns in most national surveys range from 500,000 to more than 3 million annually, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms (2008)” (289). Given the statistics, Latzer essentially argues the majority of Americans use firearms to defend themselves rather than for immoral uses. Latzer elaborates on the different types of gun issues, “[t]wo of them are associated with big cities: urban gangs and armed robbers” (290). Since urban gangs and armed robbers are classified by handgun crimes, Latzer contends, “bans on semi-automatic rifles, in the unlikely event that they were to be successful, would make no difference at all to the overwhelming majority of urban criminals” (290). In an attempt to target urban criminals directly, Latzer argues America must “direct law enforcement policies to criminal handgun users than to the guns themselves” (291). According to Latzer, the final gun issue, mass murder, “attracts the most media coverage and public attention because of the large number of victims who die in a single incident” (291). Latzer argues these mass murders positively skew the American perception of gun control; however, “...mass murders do not account for a substantial share of our gun killings” (292). (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, Latzer emphasizes the importance of re-evaluating gun crime issues in America because simple gun control regulations will not satisfy America’s security.
Con 7:
“The best writing is rewriting:” 2 Draft(s); 0 Tutorial(s); 0 Teacher conference(s)
Lerner, Renée. “The Second Amendment and the Spirit of the People.” EBSCOhost, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 1 Apr. 2020, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=10&sid=15fa9bb0-e470-481b-8b77-b4707c8d060a%40sdc-v-sessmgr03.
Key Quote: “Of all the rights in the U.S. Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms most reflects the spirit of a free people. It is the spirit of resisting oppression. That oppression can come in different forms: oppression by the government, and oppression by private thugs” (319).
(Provocative Title) Right to Bear Arms: The Spirit of Free People
(Unity/Topic Sentence) Renée Lerner, research professor of law at George Washington University Law School and author of “The Second Amendment and the Spirit of the People,” argues, “[o]f all the rights in the U.S. Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms most reflects the spirit of a free people. It is the spirit of resisting oppression. That oppression can come in different forms: oppression by the government, and oppression by private thugs” (319). (Adequate Development/Body) Demonstrating the importance of the right to bear arms, Lerner indicates Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House books “[make] clear that [rifles] [were] absolutely essential to feeding the family, because of hunting, and to protecting the family” (319-20). Lerner acknowledges her opponent’s claim, “we no longer live on the frontier. We have a specialized police force. It will keep us safe” (320). However, Lerner confirms “[v]iolent crime has not disappeared. But in America, it is localized (320). Lerner identifies the localization of violent crime in so-called “gun-free zones” (321). Rather than banning a particular gun to solve the danger because a shooter used said gun, Lerner claims “[e]very major recent mass shooting was in a ‘gun-free zone.’ Gun-free zones are death traps. Mass shooters know it” (321). With law-abiding citizens respecting the gun-free zone, Lerner claims “[m]ass shooters know they’ll be able to kill a lot more persons that way” because no one can defend themselves (321). Rather than having gun-free zones, Lerner advocates for greater authorization of obtaining a concealed carry permit. To support her claim ensuring more individuals need a concealed carry permit, Lerner refers to Florida becoming “the first state with major urban populations to ensure that almost all law-abiding adults can get a concealed carry permit” in 1987 (323). Lerner claims opponents of Florida’s decision “hysterically predicted murder and mayhem on Florida streets” (323). However, Lerner confirms “violent crime went down. License holders almost never misused their weapons. Florida’s successful law prompted other states to do the same” (323). (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, Lerner claims the right to bear arms is necessary to resist oppression by the government, and oppression by violators.
Con 8:
“The best writing is rewriting:” 2 Draft(s); 0 Tutorial(s); 0 Teacher conference(s)
Wolf, Carolyn, and Jamie A. Rosen. “Missing the Mark: Gun Control Is Not the Cure for What Ails the U.S. Mental Health System.” EBSCOhost, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 1 Oct. 2015, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=5024350f-2a7a-485d-865d-0e3268a0a60a%40sdc-v-sessmgr02.
Key Quote: “Recent gun control legislation aimed at removing guns from the hands of the mentally ill in order to reduce violence is misguided. In fact, this only contributes to the mistaken belief that there is a direct link between mental illness and violence” (851).
(Provocative Title) Eradicating the Mental Illness Stereotype
(Unity/Topic Sentence) In response to gun control in America, Carolyn Wolf and Jamie Rosen, associates at Abrams Fensterman, argue, “[r]ecent gun control legislation aimed at removing guns from the hands of the mentally ill in order to reduce violence is misguided. In fact, this only contributes to the mistaken belief that there is a direct link between mental illness and violence” (851). (Adequate Development/Body) To combat gun violence, Wolf and Rosen argue, “policymakers should be focusing on modifying existing restrictive mental health laws and increasing the funding needed to provide adequate mental health services in the community” (851). Countering stricter gun control, Wolf and Rosen claim, “a better solution to reducing gun violence includes offering community programs and preventive training in educational and workplace environments to allow for early detection and intervention. The current system does not support those in need of treatment and only serves to exacerbate the stigma associated with mental illness” (851-2). Furthermore, Wolf and Rosen oppose Illinois’s recent legislation “to make it easier to prevent those with severe mental illness from purchasing a gun” because Illinois “avoided addressing the underlying need for reformation of the flawed mental health system” (860). In turn, “federal lawmakers failed to make any progress” in reducing gun violence in America (861). Rather than solely focusing on gun regulations, Wolf and Rosen contend, “legislation should call for increased funding and awareness of mental health issues that will help identify, intervene, evaluate, and oversee the mentally ill. Being proactive and preventive means a greater possibility of treatment, recovery and stability for those individuals suffering from a mental illness” (863). Additionally, Wolf and Rosen claim, “[e]ducation and raising awareness about mental illness is possibly the best way to reduce stigma and increase understanding” (868). (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, Wolf and Rosen claim the current response to gun violence in America is flawed and must be restructured to help those susceptible to violence.
Con 9:
“The best writing is rewriting:” 2 Draft(s); 0 Tutorial(s); 0 Teacher conference(s)
Lindgren, James. “Forward: The Past and Future of Guns.” EBSCOhost, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 1 Oct. 2015, https://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cpp.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=12&sid=5024350f-2a7a-485d-865d-0e3268a0a60a%40sdc-v-sessmgr02.
Key quote: “If we are to move ahead on reducing gun violence, we must be willing to follow the evidence to reach conclusions that our ideological compatriots might not embrace. If we want to succeed, it is important not to waste political capital on proposals, however popular, that do almost nothing to reduce violence” (715).
(Provocative Title) Moving Forward with Guns
(Unity/Topic Sentence) To clear the misconception of gun violence in America, James Lindgren, associate of Northwestern University School of Law, argues, “If we are to move ahead on reducing gun violence, we must be willing to follow the evidence to reach conclusions that our ideological compatriots might not embrace. If we want to succeed, it is important not to waste political capital on proposals, however popular, that do almost nothing to reduce violence” (715). (Adequate Development/Body) In setting forth his stance, Lindgren claims, “one should recognize that gun control seldom makes a big difference one way or the other. This is because guns tend to have conflicting effects: they make fights, crimes, and suicide attempts more lethal, but they also deter some criminals” (710). To support his stance, Lindgren introduces the 2004 National Academies’ National Research Council’s examination on gun studies, concluding: “[1] There is no credible evidence that ‘right-to-carry’ laws . . . either decrease or increase violent crime . . . . [2] There is almost no evidence that violence-prevention programs intended to steer children away from guns have had any effects on their behavior, knowledge, or attitudes regarding firearms . . . . [3] Research has found associations between gun availability and suicide with guns, but it does not show whether such associations reveal genuine patterns of cause and effect. [4] ‘[I]llegal diversions from legitimate commerce are important sources of crime guns and guns used in suicide, . . . [5] firearms are used defensively many times per day, and . . . [6] some types of targeted police interventions may effectively lower gun crime and violence’” (710). Lindgren indicates the National Academies’ National Research Council’s examination offers substantial evidence concluding that we do not have the complete facts to offer legitimate measures to combat gun violence in America. Furthermore, Lindgren expresses America’s ignorant flaw with gun control in a 2012 Illinois gun statistic where “all rifles comprised only 0.9% of gun homicides, compared to 3.6% nationwide” (711). With individuals “campaigning for a ban on assault style weapons and [claiming] that it would have a significant effect on gun deaths,” Lindgren contends, “[they] [are] at best misinformed, and at worst, demagoguing” (711). (Coherence/Conclusion) In conclusion, Lindgren emphasizes the importance of being informed by the facts America has now; whether the facts serve a political agenda or not, America must not waste capital goods on impulsive gun restrictions that will result in nothing.