In today’s world, the aphorism, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” can be viewed in many ways. We see this alive in our world today, when innocent victims are killed by people with guns. Many people while arguing with their friends may like to say that guns kill people, not people kill people, but the true fact about it is that it’s a myth and a lot of people have their own ways of looking at it. The more accurate way of saying this could be,” people with guns kill people.” This myth has caused many conflicts throughout the years, and will continue causing conflicts in the future. Parts of the government have been trying to ban the ownership of certain types of firearms. This is a pretty drastic change for the United States to go through considering; we as a country have used certain types of weapons to secure or nation’s safety in the past, present, and will continue to do in the future. Guns have a certain relevance to how we became this great power of a nation in the first place. So to take away guns altogether or even to a certain degree could cause more conflicts, then may solve in the long run.
Others may look at guns as a total detriment to society, and that they should be banned for good to control all violence. If guns were banned for good then gangs, murderers, robbers, etc may not have as much power. Some believe that with this restriction violence in general would be greatly reduced. This could be the case, but this could also cause major chaos. The complete ban of guns could also cause a lot of illegal importing and exporting throughout our country. So many more major problems could come from such a simple thing as changing or banning the second amendment of the constitution.
Some citizens in the United States may use guns for a different purpose, such as hunting. Now hunting in the legal sense which involves obtaining a license and permit can be considered by some to be perfectly harmless. The banning of guns would take this right away from our nation’s citizens as well as tourists visiting our country. This could cause an innumerable amount of issues, boycotts, and riots. Some may use hunting as a way of survival for food or a way of living which would cause more problems. So the restriction or banning of guns could and would potentially cause more conflict then peace in our own country.
Others in the United States may use guns or depend on the use of guns in their occupation. So the number of job losses due to this change in the second amendment could affect a large number of citizens. This could cause more disputes as well as lawsuits against the drastic change.
It just seems that the number of people that would be affected by the change in the constitution would be a lot more negative than positive. Even though one may think that the large limitation of guns in our nation would decrease violence. The amount of disgruntled citizens seems to outweigh the change at this point in time.
This is truly a rough draft and I’m sorry I was having difficulty thinking about my topic as well as creating a format for writing it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
1. Is the topic of my paper clearly stated throughout the draft?
2. Should I change the format for my paper to make it more oraganized?
3. Do you as the reader believe I have to many beliefs or examples about one side of the argument in my paper?
4. What other types of arguments can I make for either side of aphorism, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."?
5. I feel my paper is very unorganized and out of order. Do you as a reader have some suggestions or opinions on what I can do to improve this?
6.Do you as a reader feel my topic has enough arguments for both sides so that my paper will not only be one-sided?
7. As a reader do you believe you know my opinion in my draft already, even though I have not stated it yet?
1.) The topic is stated very clearly throughout this draft. Your topic is talking about guns and people and how it guns don't kill people, people kill people. (Good Topic).
2.) I think you have a good format for your paper just when you are working on it to fix it up, try to follow along with one idea at a time, but dont worry your format is pretty good.
3.) I do not believe that you have to many examples, that is what a paper should have and your examples are good ones. You also discuss them pretty well.
4.) I think you should talk about the gun issues that were up in the 80's and 90's. Just briefly talk about the problems that were up and coming back then and also briefly say what the issues with guns back in the years.
5.) My suggesttion is for you to write everything down before you start to write the paper and just think about what you want to write about. Then you should just put it all together and then it will be a very organized essay.
6.) Yes I think that you have many arguments for both sides in order to write the paper, your arugments are good for this topic.
7.) I feel like I do know what your opinion is but I'm not 100% sure, but keep writing it seems like a really good piece of writing.
1.) How do you describe the topic you are writing about, What I mean is that are you explaining clearly what you are talking about?
2.) Do you think that writing about Guns and People will get someone's attention when reading this?
3.) What was the reason for picking this topic and how do you full feel about it?
4.) Do you think this topic that you have chosen has an impact on people in this world? If do you might want to explain that in your essay.
I think you've chosen a good topic, since slogans of all types (and from every political viewpoint) often take on a life of their own and begin to be believed without any real thought being given to the underlying reality. The way you combine the phrases (into "people with guns kill people") is a great example of using language to force readers to take a fresh look at an issue. when you ask in your questions whether you should argue on one side of this issue, I think you've taken a better approach, which is to position yourself outside the narrow constarints of the current terms of the issue. That's the type of stuff that writers do.
I'd like to see you keep working on this phrase to push it to the point it becomes something you would accept. "People with guns kill people" still seems to suggest that the issue is whether people have access to guns. The last few paragraphs of your essay, however, brings up examples of people who depend on access to guns for their livelihood or recreation, and people who desire access to guns to commit violence. This suggests that one thing you're getting at is that it's not all people with guns who kill people, but a certain type of person with a gun. Questions this raises include whether we can identify such people (before they commit violence), and whether you can actually restrict their access to guns, even if you can identify them.
I'm not convinced that thinking of what would happen if guns were totally banned is realistic. I think you're right that there would be a huge negative reaciton, but I see this as just another reason this would never happen.
There are some places where you would benefit from closer attention to the words used. In some cases, there is simply a better word, like when you state that the 2nd amendment could be banned (the better word would be "repealed"). When you talk about hunting, you describe it as a "right"; since you're talking about laws, you should probably reserve this word for things in the Bill of Rights. And I'm not sure hunting would diappear even if guns were banned. My uncle does plenty of bow hunting in the Big Cypress swamp. Banning guns would certainly change what it means to hunt in the US, but it's more accurate to think about it as changing this activity (drastically) rather than eliminating it.
By the way, there's no need to apologize for the state of your draft; the point is to get something down on paper which you can evaluate and use as a stepigns tone to a bettr paper and more thinking. What most teachers get more annoyed by, honestly, is students' unwillingness to revise their work, as if the first thing that tumbled out onto the page was obviously perfect. I revise, professionals revise, everyone revises. Students who don't revise much haven't really developed critical thinking skills or aren't interested in getting something across in their paper.
In regards to your statement about the drastic change that the restriction of gun ownership represents, I wonder how changes in the types of guns and ammo available make this less drastic than one might initially think. One could just as easily say that the drastic change in gun technologies represents a huge change in what it nmeans to own and operate a firearm. I think you recognize this a bit when you say that groups have tried to ban "certain types of firearms" and that "certain types of weapons" have been used to secure the nation. One question to ask is: do these categories presently overlap?
I look forward to your revision.
Post a Comment