Chris Breuner
Knapp
English 1A
5/26/13
Dear Wayne LaPierre,
With the topic of gun control and regulation comes countless arguments stemming from all directions for many different interests. Some feel a need to protect the rights of Americans under the second amendment, and others desire to protect their families and live in a less armed country. From the drafting of the constitution, gun control has been a topic for discussion. Many feel that the right to own a firearm of their choice is written in the constitution, while others say it doesn't apply to heavy weaponry. Something that everyone can agree on however, is that gun owners should be educated. Not only on the proper use of weaponry, but proper storage, safety awareness, rules and regulations of gun ranges, as well as the responsibility that comes with gun ownership.
In a country that is split for the regulation of arms, comes debates and speculation about the best course of action. In light of recent tragic events, including Newtown and theater shootings, regulation has become the hype of the news and a call for action that continues to spread over all forms of social media. There seems to only be one detail that both "for gun regulation" and "anti gun regulation" parties have in common, that something needs to change. The purpose of gun regulation is an attempt to create a "safer nation" with less inward violence. This is not done simply with the removal of guns, but takes far more effort.
There are many that believe the freedom to own weapons is an unalienable right. That their right to own and operate weaponry is written in the constitution, and any law that prohibits them from using and carrying their weapons is infringing on the 2nd amendment (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). While this counterargument is valid, it does not take into account that the Bill of Rights, which was written over 300 years ago, has always been subject to interpretation from an ever changing government. For example, the eight amendment clearly states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." However people are still put to death for crimes. Some people feel this clearly violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" section of the amendment. Laws are always subject to interpretation. If the founding fathers could see what the semi-automatic weapons of today are capable of doing, they may have been more clearer on the second amendment. Or perhaps the amendments were written this way on purpose, to be changed and interpreted differently as the world continues turning.
Another argument against gun regulation, states that taking guns off of the streets will not make them disappear, it will only increase illegal gun smuggling and place more cash and guns in the hands of criminals. While this point is valid, we have to think of the greater good in the end. Lets use methamphetamines for example. If it was legal for meth to be sold in supermarkets. How many new citizens will become meth addicts? How much more meth would be created and sold in our society? A lot like methamphetamines, guns will never fully disappear, no matter how illegal we make them. A lot of gun related accidents happen when kids find guns. According to the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research "More than 31,000 people a year in the United States die from gunshot wounds. Because victims are disproportionately young, gun violence is one of the leading causes of premature mortality in the U.S. In addition to these deaths, in 2010, there were an estimated 337,960 nonfatal violent crimes committed with guns, and 73,505 persons treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds." ("The Case for Gun Policy Reforms in America." Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) More regulation means less guns on the street. These numbers can be drastically reduced.
A prevention of future gun violence lies in education, reform, and regulation. First we need to have all gun owners registered and educated about proper use and storage. This could be done by implementing a gun regulation law, that would require all assault weapons to be banned for citizens who do not possess the required permit (such as retired military personal) Only certain citizens would able to obtain this permit after mandatory instructional classes, and basic psychic exam. Background checks are mandatory for all gun owners. New guns (non assault) may be obtained with a license, after a 14 day waiting period. All guns need to be registered with the ATF. Problems like making assault weapons illegal would also take them out of the hands of well adjusted citizens. And making them illegal would create the daunting task of removing them from the hands of current gun owning citizens. This would prove quite a problem as there are people that would, and are willing to fight rather than give up their guns. So many Americans feel very passionately about gun regulation one way or the other, that it seems only a compromise, or middle ground, would make both sides moderately happy.
Its up to the country to decide how this would play out. Problems will continue to arise, and arguments will continue to be made. However we must bear in mind that safety is the ultimate goal here. How many deaths due to lack of gun control make it worth the luxury of owning guns for comfort and pleasure?
Regards,
Chris Breuner
Whitney, Craig R. Living with guns : a liberal's case for the Second Amendment. New York : Public Affairs, 2012. Print.
"The Case for Gun Policy Reforms in America." Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2013. Web. May 2013.
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Formal Paper Revised Draft
Chris Breuner
Knapp
English 1A
5/26/13
With the topic of gun control and regulation comes countless arguments stemming from all directions. From some, a need to protect the rights of Americans under the second amendment, and from others, the desire to protect their families and live in a less armed country. From the drafting of the constitution, gun control has been a topic for discussion. Many feel that the right to own a weapon of their choice is written in the constitution, while others say it doesn't apply to heavy weaponry.....
In a country that is split for the regulation of arms, comes debates and speculation about the best course of action. In light of recent events, regulation has become the hype of the news and a call for action that continues to spread over all forms of social media. There seems to only be one detail that both the "for gun regulation" and "anti gun regulation" parties have in common, that something needs to change. The purpose of gun regulation is an attempt to create a "safer nation" with less inward violence. This is not done simply with the removal of guns, but takes far more effort.
Something that everyone can agree on, is that gun owners should be educated. Not only on the proper use of weaponry, but proper storage, safety awareness, rules and regulations of gun ranges, as well as the responsibility that comes with gun ownership.
There are many however, that believe the freedom to own weapons is an unalienable right. That their right to own and operate weapons is written in the constitution, and any law that prohibits them from using and carrying their weapons is infringing on the 2nd amendment (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). While this counterargument is valid, it does not take into account that the Bill of Rights, which was written over 300 years ago, has always been subject to interpretation from an ever changing government. For example, the eight amendment clearly states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." However people are still put to death for crimes. Some people feel this clearly violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" section of the amendment. Laws are always subject to interpretation. Perhaps if the founding fathers could see what the semi-automatic weapons of today are capable of doing, they may have been more clearer on the second amendment.
Another argument against gun regulation, states that taking guns off of the streets will not make them disappear, it will only increase illegal gun smuggling and place more cash and guns in the hands of criminals. While this point is valid, we have to think of the greater good in the end. Lets use methamphetamines for example. If it was legal for meth to be sold in supermarkets. How many new citizens will become meth addicts? How much more meth would be created and sold in our society? A lot like methamphetamines, guns will never fully disappear, no matter how illegal we make them. A lot of gun related accidents happen when kids find guns. More regulation leads to an overall decrease of guns in homes, which creates a ripple effect of less gun related accidents.
So many Americans feel very passionately about gun regulation one way or the other, that it seems only a compromise, or middle ground, would make both sides moderately happy. A prevention of future gun violence lies in education, reform, and regulation. First we need to have all gun owners registered and educated about proper use and storage. This could be done by implementing a gun regulation law, that would require all assault weapons to be banned for citizens who do not possess the required permit (such as retired military personal) Only certain citizens would able to obtain this permit after mandatory instructional classes, and basic psychic exam. Background checks are mandatory for all gun owners. New guns (non assault) may be obtained with a license, after a 14 day waiting period. All guns need to be registered with the ATF. Its up to the country to decide how this would play out. Problems will continue to arise, and arguments will continue to be made. Problems like making assault weapons illegal would also take them out of the hands of well adjusted citizens. And making them illegal would create the daunting task of removing them from the hands of current gun owning citizens. This would prove quite a problem as there are people that would and are willing to fight rather than give up their guns.
#1 gun control is a heavy subject.
Knapp
English 1A
5/26/13
With the topic of gun control and regulation comes countless arguments stemming from all directions. From some, a need to protect the rights of Americans under the second amendment, and from others, the desire to protect their families and live in a less armed country. From the drafting of the constitution, gun control has been a topic for discussion. Many feel that the right to own a weapon of their choice is written in the constitution, while others say it doesn't apply to heavy weaponry.....
In a country that is split for the regulation of arms, comes debates and speculation about the best course of action. In light of recent events, regulation has become the hype of the news and a call for action that continues to spread over all forms of social media. There seems to only be one detail that both the "for gun regulation" and "anti gun regulation" parties have in common, that something needs to change. The purpose of gun regulation is an attempt to create a "safer nation" with less inward violence. This is not done simply with the removal of guns, but takes far more effort.
Something that everyone can agree on, is that gun owners should be educated. Not only on the proper use of weaponry, but proper storage, safety awareness, rules and regulations of gun ranges, as well as the responsibility that comes with gun ownership.
There are many however, that believe the freedom to own weapons is an unalienable right. That their right to own and operate weapons is written in the constitution, and any law that prohibits them from using and carrying their weapons is infringing on the 2nd amendment (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). While this counterargument is valid, it does not take into account that the Bill of Rights, which was written over 300 years ago, has always been subject to interpretation from an ever changing government. For example, the eight amendment clearly states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." However people are still put to death for crimes. Some people feel this clearly violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" section of the amendment. Laws are always subject to interpretation. Perhaps if the founding fathers could see what the semi-automatic weapons of today are capable of doing, they may have been more clearer on the second amendment.
Another argument against gun regulation, states that taking guns off of the streets will not make them disappear, it will only increase illegal gun smuggling and place more cash and guns in the hands of criminals. While this point is valid, we have to think of the greater good in the end. Lets use methamphetamines for example. If it was legal for meth to be sold in supermarkets. How many new citizens will become meth addicts? How much more meth would be created and sold in our society? A lot like methamphetamines, guns will never fully disappear, no matter how illegal we make them. A lot of gun related accidents happen when kids find guns. More regulation leads to an overall decrease of guns in homes, which creates a ripple effect of less gun related accidents.
So many Americans feel very passionately about gun regulation one way or the other, that it seems only a compromise, or middle ground, would make both sides moderately happy. A prevention of future gun violence lies in education, reform, and regulation. First we need to have all gun owners registered and educated about proper use and storage. This could be done by implementing a gun regulation law, that would require all assault weapons to be banned for citizens who do not possess the required permit (such as retired military personal) Only certain citizens would able to obtain this permit after mandatory instructional classes, and basic psychic exam. Background checks are mandatory for all gun owners. New guns (non assault) may be obtained with a license, after a 14 day waiting period. All guns need to be registered with the ATF. Its up to the country to decide how this would play out. Problems will continue to arise, and arguments will continue to be made. Problems like making assault weapons illegal would also take them out of the hands of well adjusted citizens. And making them illegal would create the daunting task of removing them from the hands of current gun owning citizens. This would prove quite a problem as there are people that would and are willing to fight rather than give up their guns.
#1 gun control is a heavy subject.
...needs to be regulated
...educated
...family safety in mind
#2 anti gun control arguments
...2nd amendment - up for interpretation (just like the rest of them)
...taking them off the streets wont make them disappear
...only increase gun smuggling
#3 what should we do?
educate
gun classes, permits
veteran permits
gun permit regulation.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Formal Paper First Draft
Chris Breuner
Knapp
English 1A
5/19/13
With the topic of gun control and regulation comes countless arguments stemming from all directions. From some, a need to protect the rights of Americans under the second amendment, and from others, the desire to protect their families and live in a less armed country. From the drafting of the constitution, gun control has been a topic for discussion. Many feel that the right to own a weapon of their choice is written in the constitution, while others say it doesn't apply to heavy weaponry.....
#1 gun control is a heavy subject.
Knapp
English 1A
5/19/13
With the topic of gun control and regulation comes countless arguments stemming from all directions. From some, a need to protect the rights of Americans under the second amendment, and from others, the desire to protect their families and live in a less armed country. From the drafting of the constitution, gun control has been a topic for discussion. Many feel that the right to own a weapon of their choice is written in the constitution, while others say it doesn't apply to heavy weaponry.....
#1 gun control is a heavy subject.
...needs to be regulated
...educated
...family safety in mind
#2 anti gun control arguments
...2nd amendment - up for interpretation (just like the rest of them)
...taking them off the streets wont make them disappear
...only increase gun smuggling
#3 what should we do?
educate
gun classes, permits
veteran permits
gun permit regulation.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Annotated Bibliography
Annotated Bibliography
Whitney, Craig R. Living with guns : a liberal's case for the Second Amendment. New York : Public Affairs, 2012. Print.
While gun control is trending in the media, there is no absence of books and journals on the subject. It seems that gun control and regulation has been a disputed topic since this country was founded. This book called to me because while researching the counter argument of anti-gun regulation, I realized that the second amendment argument is quite valid. Its simply a matter of interpretation. I needed to do more research as I could see plainly how others would interpret stricter gun control as infringing on the second amendment. I believe that this book will be a great asset in my argument, and strengthen my knowledge of the counter argument.
"The Case for Gun Policy Reforms in America." Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2013. Web. May 2013.
I believe that this 12 page PDF will be one of the largest assists I have for writing my paper. It contains less of an argument, and more pact full research facts provided by the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. It opens up with recent statistics about gun violence and how its affecting the country, then provides background for current gun laws and regulations. This article also brought to my attention a new argument out of their data. A large percentage of gun offenders are very young and many underage. Creating an environment making guns harder to come by would mean reducing a lot of the guns to fell into kids hands. Whether its an inattentive parent that no longer purchased a gun due to them being harder to purchase, or less on the streets to make their way to the kids who seek them out. In just a few pages this article expanded my argument and backed them up with valuable statistics.
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf | |
Monday, April 29, 2013
Rhetorical Analysis
David Kupelian has quite a few things to say about this generation. I believe his passion for his studies and the love of his son are what stir such an emotional response through his writing. In the first few pages alone, Kupelian uses a number of rhetorical devices to prove his point and reach out to his audience. While I believe his opinion is slightly misguided and a little biased. The points he makes are no less valid.
In the first paragraph describes his situation with his son. The situation being the once independent boy scout falling victim to peer influence and current social trends. He uses this entire scenario to exemplify what he believes is happening to the vast majority of today's youth. He believes much of the blame lies in the media of today and rap music. Using cause and effect, he explains how the culture of rap music affected the kids and their "hard" attitudes were emulated, creating a "gangsta nation." While I agreed with his argument for the most part, there was no part that I agreed with more than the corporates trying to capture the spirit of the youth and reflect it back as paid advertising. I watched the Disney channel the other day and was disgusted at the amount of adverting and messages that were being thrown tossed around. I believe he illustrated his point beautifully buy using the exemplification of sprite.It was unpopular until it started funding hip hop shows and made itself to be the drink of that generation. Something Kupelian called a "Brilliant marketing Scheme"
In short, Kupelian uses several (if not all) listed rhetorical devices in his persuasive argument. While I don't agree with his ideals of a "home schooled" generation for several reasons, I believe he comes from a place of caring whose writing only furthers my trust in his argument. He may be misinformed about all of today's generation, and a little biased, but his examples and arguments are strong and give a good amount of information. The use of all of his rhetorical devices only strengthen his writing and the amount of persuasion in the information presented.
In the first paragraph describes his situation with his son. The situation being the once independent boy scout falling victim to peer influence and current social trends. He uses this entire scenario to exemplify what he believes is happening to the vast majority of today's youth. He believes much of the blame lies in the media of today and rap music. Using cause and effect, he explains how the culture of rap music affected the kids and their "hard" attitudes were emulated, creating a "gangsta nation." While I agreed with his argument for the most part, there was no part that I agreed with more than the corporates trying to capture the spirit of the youth and reflect it back as paid advertising. I watched the Disney channel the other day and was disgusted at the amount of adverting and messages that were being thrown tossed around. I believe he illustrated his point beautifully buy using the exemplification of sprite.It was unpopular until it started funding hip hop shows and made itself to be the drink of that generation. Something Kupelian called a "Brilliant marketing Scheme"
In short, Kupelian uses several (if not all) listed rhetorical devices in his persuasive argument. While I don't agree with his ideals of a "home schooled" generation for several reasons, I believe he comes from a place of caring whose writing only furthers my trust in his argument. He may be misinformed about all of today's generation, and a little biased, but his examples and arguments are strong and give a good amount of information. The use of all of his rhetorical devices only strengthen his writing and the amount of persuasion in the information presented.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
If I had the ability to change my society, it would probably be something along the lines of massive social reform, not something as simple as what I'm discussing here. However, due to the fact that this exercise is limited to one particular choice, I would have to choose the currently trending topic that is very controversial in the United States today. The topic of gun control has been discussed and worked over in the media what seems like every day since the tragic Newtown Connecticut incident. People arguing for and against gun control, background checks, and regulation. My first order of business, would be to implement a gun regulation law, that would require all assault weapons to be banned for all citizens who do not possess the required permit. Only certain citizens would able to obtain this permit after mandatory instructional classes, and basic psychic exam. Background checks are mandatory for all gun owners. New guns (non assault) may be obtained without a license, after a 14 day waiting period. All guns are to be registered with the ATF.
A common argument I hear against the illegalization of assault weapons is something along the lines of "Making them illegal wont take them off the street, meth is illegal, and its still on the street." While this is true, its an awful argument because methamphetamines were made legal, the amount of meth users would increase. Making it illegal severely cuts down the amount on the street.
In short, if I were to construct an entire gun regulation proposition, I would probably have to spend a bit more time considering all the factors, like the one that making assult weapons ilegal would also take them out of the hands of well adjusted citizens. And making them illegal would create the daunting task of removing them from the hands of current gun owning citizens. Good luck in the deep south.
A common argument I hear against the illegalization of assault weapons is something along the lines of "Making them illegal wont take them off the street, meth is illegal, and its still on the street." While this is true, its an awful argument because methamphetamines were made legal, the amount of meth users would increase. Making it illegal severely cuts down the amount on the street.
In short, if I were to construct an entire gun regulation proposition, I would probably have to spend a bit more time considering all the factors, like the one that making assult weapons ilegal would also take them out of the hands of well adjusted citizens. And making them illegal would create the daunting task of removing them from the hands of current gun owning citizens. Good luck in the deep south.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Personal Reflection
What I've learned in English 1A
Although Persepolis was the feature of my last semester's history class, the book and continuing issues that surround the US and Middle East remain as pertinent as always. What was fascinating to me was the amount of detail and information that the small groups presented. Last semester I was given the historical background and key events surrounding Persepolis, however what I lacked was the cultural ties and traditions that gives the book context. This class provided a much needed amount of background information, that brings the story together, and sheds more light on the conflicts of the Middle East.
Along with the cultural analysis of persepolis, I learned valuable skills including the proper usage of MLA format, and the formation of a TEA paragraph. Most of the time I assumed that quotes speak for themselves. However in light of recent teachings I've learned that not only do I need to backup my quotes with an explanation, I need to introduce them as well, giving the paper a smoother transaction from statement to quote to explanation to analysis.
MLA was a writing style I was always been using, however the finite details of citing sources and proper layout escaped me in the time between college and high school. It was a much needed review to work in MLA and implement it into our papers and paragraphs.
Although Persepolis was the feature of my last semester's history class, the book and continuing issues that surround the US and Middle East remain as pertinent as always. What was fascinating to me was the amount of detail and information that the small groups presented. Last semester I was given the historical background and key events surrounding Persepolis, however what I lacked was the cultural ties and traditions that gives the book context. This class provided a much needed amount of background information, that brings the story together, and sheds more light on the conflicts of the Middle East.
Along with the cultural analysis of persepolis, I learned valuable skills including the proper usage of MLA format, and the formation of a TEA paragraph. Most of the time I assumed that quotes speak for themselves. However in light of recent teachings I've learned that not only do I need to backup my quotes with an explanation, I need to introduce them as well, giving the paper a smoother transaction from statement to quote to explanation to analysis.
MLA was a writing style I was always been using, however the finite details of citing sources and proper layout escaped me in the time between college and high school. It was a much needed review to work in MLA and implement it into our papers and paragraphs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)