2a) An argument for the right of software companies to continue making and selling violent video game: aim the argument at parents who oppose their children’s playing these games.

• The problems that may be faced when the writer is reaching the audience are that it is difficult to convince a parent that their children should play these games. It will also be difficult to explain that violent video-games are not made simply for children and the game developers would lose a larger consumer group through the adults that buy their games. It is also difficult to tell a parent that playing video-games will not translate into violence in real life. A solution to these problems is to tell the parents that they have the choice to not buy these games for their children. There could also be research on the effects of violent video-games on the psychology of children, bolstering the logos of the argument. The author could also use pathos by stating that he or she has kids, connecting to the emotions of the audience.

Throughout the process of writing this first essay, I have developed a much deeper understanding of how to create an argument effectively. I have learned to mold my thesis around my argument and at the same time change the content of the argument to stay very focused on the thesis. Also, I have learned much more on how to use ethos well. Before, my high school essays consisted of mainly logos and pathos, but the credibility was not being developed. I have always wondered why my essays just weren’t quite as convincing as they should have been, but there was no defined solution. Also, I learned how to use sources and quotes more effectively. That way the audience will trust my argument.

Original Argument: There has been little advancement in the way of national gun control legislation throughout America’s history. With greater attention and determination for gun control by the public and lobbyists in America, approved legislation at the federal level has the potential to greatly reduce the amount of gun-related deaths in the United States.

Argument with more pathos: For the past several decades, there have been numerous, unpredictable mass shootings all across the nation. America has also experienced the constant bombardment of gun violence in crime. Hundreds of thousands of lives are lost every year due to the lack of regulation on gun ownership and licensure. There has been little advancement in the way of national gun control legislation throughout America’s history. With greater attention and determination for gun control by the public and lobbyists in America, approved legislation at the federal level has the potential to greatly reduce the amount of gun-related deaths in the United States.

Argument with more ethos: The issue over gun control has made its resurgence in politics recently. Over the past presidential campaign, one of the many issues at hand was gun control. But of course, the plans of the candidates over the topics are sometimes not met. Gun control is so often debated, yet no one seems to care enough to take action on the national level. If everyone could imagine America with no guns, as a utopia, several different reactions would be developed. Some would think that crime would drop significantly and gun violence wouldn’t be a factor in the mortality rate of Americans. Others would consider their right to defend themselves from people who go beyond the law to attain weapons anyway, and there would be no defense against a tyrannical government. Both are the extremes of the gun control debate. In order for both parties to be satiated and reduce gun violence in the united states is to promote federal legislation that regulates the sale and licensure of weapons.

Charleston, San Bernardino, Orlando nightclub, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine. These are all well-known tragedies in the recent history of the United States. However, they do not constitute the vast majority of gun related deaths in the nation. According to data collected by Politifact on the article, “15 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence This Year,” from The Trace, “From 2005-2015, 71 Americans were killed in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. 301,797 were killed by gun violence during the same period.” This ongoing epidemic needs to be controlled through much-needed legislation. Gun control is not designed to stop only mass shootings, but also to decrease the total amount of crime that is performed with the use of firearms. The main predicament over the fight in Congress and the public over gun control, however, is that there isn’t enough unity among gun control advocates, allowing the more powerful organizations, like the NRA, to easily diffuse development of gun control legislation at the national level. With greater attention and determination for gun control by the public and lobbyists in America, approved legislation at the federal level has the potential to greatly reduce the amount of gun-related deaths in the United States.

There has been an ongoing battle between the parties at the federal level over gun control, and most of the legislation has either been thrown out or is continuously debated. However, at the state level, gun control has been anything but stagnant. The Lancet, a British journal, collected the data from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, stated that, “20 states have strengthened gun laws related to domestic violence and at least 19 states, including Florida and Massachusetts, have passed laws aimed at improving databases used in background checks.” Clearly, there has been much effort in the state level to reduce gun violence in the nation, state by state. “Since Sandy Hook in 2012, there have been 138 new gun laws in 42 states. This is unprecedented momentum at the state level” (Sharmila qtd. Anderman). Perhaps it is the feeling of responsibility of the state legislature to handle the incidents that happen by consoling the public through gun control legislation. However, with such a diverse and opinionated country, there must be a bipartisan effort for a chance at success for gun control.

Much like other progressive movements in United States history, such as slavery, civil rights, and gay marriage rights, as Sharmila mentioned, it takes time for nation-wide issues to become a part of the federal agenda. The two main tragic events that have recently driven the gun control movement are the mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a nightclub in Orlando, Florida. However, Sharmila recognizes that these events don’t encapsulate the entirety of movement for gun control when she states that, “Of the 90 deaths a day in the USA caused by gun violence, some two-thirds are suicides.” More focus needs to be placed on this relatively untouched side of the gun control movement in order for there to be greater success in Congress. The media also doesn’t contribute to the teaching of the many levels of gun violence in America. It is now becoming apparent that, “Everyday violence doesn’t make the headlines. As much as events such as Orlando elevate the epidemic of gun violence to the broader public, the process of social and legislative change is incremental” (Sharmila qtd. Alcorn). There needs to be better education concerning the gross amounts of gun violence in America in order for the public to take a more defined stance on this issue.

During this past presidential election, there was talk of gun control by both parties, but when gun control was advocated, only those two incidents were mentioned most often, because the candidates knew that the public would want to hear about these infamous events, so as to get the attention they want. However, opposition found it easy to counter this argument because they simply stated that they wouldn’t want to impose more gun control on everyone as a result of the actions of only a few people. There has been some progress in the many battles toward national gun control legislation in early 2016, but it is certainly not enough to win the war. The article in the New Scientist, “Tighter Gun Control,” describes the accomplishment of President Obama’s campaign for gun control that, “currently, anyone who wants to buy a gun from a licensed store must pass a background check.” However, even though Obama had further plans to cut off the loophole that allows someone to purchase guns without background checks from private sellers, but after the recent inauguration of President Trump, these efforts are likely to be squandered.

So why hasn’t gun control been a heated topic until recently? According to Emily Underwood, a writer for Science journal, in her article, “Gun Control Agenda Is a Call to Duty for Scientists,” stated that the, “CDC was pursuing a gun control agenda rather than unbiased science, former U.S. Representative Jay Dickey (R–AR), who described himself then as ‘NRA’s point person in Congress,’ convinced the House to cut $2.6 million from the CDC budget: the precise amount that the agency’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control was slated to spend on gun violence research that year.” After nearly twenty years, President Obama in 2013 told the CDC and other agencies to resume their studies. Because there was no data concerning gun violence with suicides, homicides, and mass shootings, “academic papers published on gun violence fell by 60%” (Underwood). With no academic papers, there was no way for much needed information about gun control to reach the public with the exception of news about mass shootings reaching national television. The United States has been long overdue for gun control legislation.

It also seems that even though there is wide approval in the public over gun control laws, there has been little action at the national level concerning this issue. A 2013 article, “The Gun Control Paradox,” by Howard Schuman and Stanley Presser, discusses the data collected in a survey about the public’s opinion of possible legislation that would require a permit approved by police to own a gun, a course of action that is being tested in states like California more recently. The two writers begin with the statement that, “Historically, despite considerable public outcry immediately following these horrific events, attention to gun control quickly fades” (Schuman and Presser 68). However, this phenomenon is counterintuitive to the majority opinion about the proposed legislation. Schuman and Presser utilize a survey conducted by SurveyUSA in 2011, which concluded that, “57 percent favored a gun permit requirement, and 43 percent were in opposition” (Schuman and Presser 68). With higher approval of gun control legislation, the expected result should be more advancements in Congress over the issue. The writers analyzed the data to understand why no action was being done at the national level for gun control. They observed that even though individuals supporting gun control overall had more “intensity of opinion”, the “centrality of opinion”, which is the likelihood that a constituent would vote for a representative who supports their opinion, went to the gun rights side. It was also apparent that, of the people who took the survey, a very slim percentage of individuals took action to either write a letter to an elected official or donate money to a cause. This lack of public action left political groups, especially the National Rifle Association (NRA) to influence the continued rejection of gun control legislation. Schuman and Presser arrived at the solution that, “if proponents of gun control legislation want to succeed, they must counter their opponents with letter writing campaigns of their own, with financial support for appropriate organizations, and with protests, showing that they are committed enough to act on the issue” (Schuman and Presser 69). The politics of gun control is essentially one-sided, and for any legislation to be put through, the public will have to provide more than his or her opinion to make the change in politics concerning gun control.

Gun control has had much attention in politics for more than a century, yet there hasn’t been much legislation to produce the results that everyone has been looking for. Members of Congress who represent the NRA have prevented the research by the CDC on gun violence. As a result of this strategic attack on gun violence research, political lobbyists, analysts, and the general public has been bereft of this raw data. We were left with only the few trusted resources and the media to confuse and dwindle the attention toward gun violence in America. There is wide approval of gun control legislation, yet little is done by the public to voice their opinions about this issue. Without as strong a presence in politics as the gun rights activists through the NRA, gun control legislation has not been able to make its way through the long legislation process. All of the various thoughts predictions gun control cannot be proven on the national level until nation-wide legislation allows us to see the benefits and faults of the specific type of gun control laws that are being put in place.

Works Cited

Devi, Sharmila. “The Long Road to Gun Control in America.” The Lancet. 388.10041 (2016): 224-225. Print.

Mascia, Jennifer. “15 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence This Year.” The Trace. N.p., 28 Jan. 2017. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.

Schuman, H, and S Presser. “The Gun Control Paradox.” Contexts. 12.2 (2013): 68-69. Print.

“Tighter Gun Control.” New Scientist. 229.3055 (2016). Print.

Underwood, E. “Public Health. Gun Control Agenda Is a Call to Duty for Scientists.” Science (new York, N.y.). 339.6118 (2013): 381-2. Print.

 

Help Received: The Writing Center, Easybib

Charleston, San Bernardino, Orlando nightclub, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine. These are all well-known tragedies in the recent history of the United States. However, they do not constitute the vast majority of gun related deaths in the nation. According to data collected by Politifact on the article, “15 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence This Year,” from The Trace, “From 2005-2015, 71 Americans were killed in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. 301,797 were killed by gun violence during the same period.” This ongoing epidemic needs to be controlled through much-needed legislation. Gun control is not designed to stop only mass shootings, but also to decrease the total amount of crime that is performed with the use of firearms. With stricter gun control, the federal government has the potential to greatly reduce the amount of gun-related deaths in the United States.

There has been an ongoing battle between the parties at the federal level over gun control, and most of it has been thrown out or it is continuously debated. However, at the state level, gun control has been anything but stagnant. The Lancet, a British journal, collected the data from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, that, “20 states have strengthened gun laws related to domestic violence and at least 19 states, including Florida and Massachusetts, have passed laws aimed at improving databases used in background checks. ‘Since Sandy Hook in 2012, there have been 138 new gun laws in 42 states. This is unprecedented momentum at the state level’, Allison Anderman, staff attorney at the law centre, told The Lancet” (Sharmila). Much like other progressive movements in United States history, such as slavery, civil rights, and gay marriage rights, as Sharmila mentioned, it takes time for nation-wide issues to become a part of the federal agenda. The two main tragic events that have recently driven the gun control movement are the mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a nightclub in Orlando, Florida. However, Sharmila recognizes that these events don’t encapsulate the entirety of movement for gun control when she states that, “Of the 90 deaths a day in the USA caused by gun violence, some two-thirds are suicides. ‘Everyday violence doesn’t make the headlines. As much as events such as Orlando elevate the epidemic of gun violence to the broader public, the process of social and legislative change is incremental’, Ted Alcorn, research director for Everytown for Gun Safety, a grassroots organisation seeking to end gun violence, told The Lancet.” During this past presidential election, there was talk of gun control by both parties, but when gun control was advocated, only those two incidents were mentioned most often, because the candidates knew that the public would want to hear about these infamous events, so as to get the attention they want. However, opposition found it easy to counter this argument because they simply stated that they wouldn’t want to impose more gun control on everyone as a result of the actions of only a few people. There has been some progress in the battle toward gun control in early 2016, but it is certainly not enough to win the war. The article in the New Scientist, “Tighter Gun Control,” describes the accomplishment of President Obama’s campaign for gun control that, “currently, anyone who wants to buy a gun from a licensed store must pass a background check.” However, even though Obama had further plans to cut off the loophole that allows someone to purchase guns without background checks from private sellers, but after the recent inauguration of President Trump, these efforts are likely to be squandered.

So why hasn’t gun control been a heated topic until recently? According to Emily Underwood, a writer for Science journal, in her article, “Gun Control Agenda Is a Call to Duty for Scientists,” stated that the, “CDC was pursuing a gun control agenda rather than unbiased science, former U.S. Representative Jay Dickey (R–AR), who described himself then as ‘NRA’s point person in Congress,’ convinced the House to cut $2.6 million from the CDC budget: the precise amount that the agency’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control was slated to spend on gun violence research that year.” After nearly twenty years, President Obama in 2013 told the CDC and other agencies to resume their studies. Because there was no data concerning gun violence with suicides, homicides, and mass shootings, “academic papers published on gun violence fell by 60%” (Underwood). With no academic papers, there was no way for much needed information about gun control to reach the public with the exception of news about mass shootings reaching national television. The United States has been long overdue for gun control legislation.

It also seems that even though there is wide approval in the public over gun control laws, there has been little action at the national level concerning this issue. A 2013 article, “The Gun Control Paradox,” by Howard Schuman and Stanley Presser, discusses the data collected in a survey about the public’s opinion of possible legislation that would require a permit approved by police to own a gun. The two writers begin with the statement that, “historically, despite considerable public outcry immediately following these horrific events, attention to gun control quickly fades” (Schuman and Presser 68). However, this phenomenon is counterintuitive to the majority opinion about the proposed legislation. Schuman and Presser utilize a survey conducted by SurveyUSA in 2011, which concluded that, “57 percent favored a gun permit requirement, and 43 percent were in opposition” (Schuman and Presser 68). The writers analyzed the data to understand why no action was being done at the national level for gun control. They observed that even though individuals supporting gun control overall had more “intensity of opinion”, the “centrality of opinion”, which is the likelihood that a constituent would vote for a representative who supports their opinion, went to the gun rights side. It was also apparent that, of the people who took the survey, a very slim percentage of individuals took action to either write a letter to an elected official or donate money to a cause. This lack of public action left political groups, especially the National Rifle Association (NRA) to influence the continued rejection of gun control legislation. Schuman and Presser arrived at the solution that, “if proponents of gun control legislation want to succeed, they must counter their opponents with letter writing campaigns of their own, with financial support for appropriate organizations, and with protests, showing that they are committed enough to act on the issue” (Schuman and Presser 69). The politics of gun control is essentially one-sided, and for any legislation to be put through, the public will have to care enough to make the change in politics concerning gun control.

Gun control has had much attention in politics for more than a century, yet there hasn’t been much legislation to produce the results that everyone has been looking for. Members of Congress who represent the NRA have prevented the research by the CDC on gun violence. There is wide approval of gun control legislation, yet little is done by the public to voice their opinions about this issue. Lastly, there are several theories in support and against gun control. These theories cannot be proven on the national level until nation-wide legislation allows us to see the benefits and faults of the specific type of gun control laws that are being put in place.

 

 

 

Works Cited

Devi, Sharmila. “The Long Road to Gun Control in America.” The Lancet.  388.10041 (2016): 224-225. Print.

Mascia, Jennifer. “15 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence This Year.” The Trace. N.p., 28 Jan. 2017. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.

Schuman, H, and S Presser. “The Gun Control Paradox.” Contexts. 12.2 (2013): 68-69. Print.

“Tighter Gun Control.” New Scientist. 229.3055 (2016). Print.

Underwood, E. “Public Health. Gun Control Agenda Is a Call to Duty for Scientists.” Science (new York, N.y.). 339.6118 (2013): 381-2. Print.

I still have no idea where my Writing Arguments textbook is, but these are annotations from my everyday writer textbook.

Reason:

There is an ongoing issue in domestic and foreign policy about how to power and entire country. This topic is constantly riddled with problems, like the non-renewable energy, i.e. coal and gasoline, that is powering most of America, the controversy of carbon dioxide emissions and its effect on climate change, and the United States’ past and current involvement in the Middle East over the surplus of oil in the area. The university’s decision to charge more for parking permits for solo drivers is a small, but significant environmental plan because it encourages students to use public transportation. On the economic side of things, everyone pays taxes that go toward many public-funded resources, like public transportation. We, as citizens, should take advantage of these public works since we contribute to their existence. Also, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coal and natural gas constitute 66% of all electricity production in 2015 was from coal and natural gas. Scientists are in a never-ending battle to prove or disprove coal, natural gas, and gasoline emissions and their effect on the environment and climate change. Even if there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, it is still a good idea to reduce the consumption of gasoline we use. Also, with all of this funding for the military to intervene in the Middle East to protect the source of our oil, people against this imposition of American power would agree that using public transportation would greatly reduce the need for gasoline. Some of the funding of the military, a large percentage of America’s expenditures, could instead be spent on finding alternative, renewable energy sources, so we could completely forget our dependency on gasoline.

Warrant:

Since the first use of fossil fuels as an energy source, the humankind has made leaps and bounds to make these resources more efficient and less harmful on the environment. However, this is simply not enough to effectively reduce our carbon footprint and our dependency on non-renewable resources. Instead, greatly reducing the amount of gasoline consumed by using public transportation will have a much greater effect on these issues. Therefore, it is good for the environment to encourage students to use public transportation. This new generation of people, who have become culturally and socially aware of these issues, are the perfect group to act on this impending issue. It should be the mission of every generation to fix the issues of the past generations and make the world a better place. And at this developmental phase in their lives in higher education, they can develop the knowledge and skills necessary to replace gasoline dependency altogether. This policy at the university very effective because it not only helps to remedy the issue of the greenhouse effect, but it also helps college students become aware of gasoline dependency and it will compel them to make the change in energy consumption that the world will soon need.

Reference:

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

This argument about the wall bordering the southern United States and Mexico is extremely one-sided because he addresses no other side of the argument but his own. He uses a lot of charged visuals and statements to develop his argument, such as the wall plowing through someone’s house, thereby preventing the homeowner from using her restroom. He does this to portray the invasiveness that the wall will have on the public. He uses many hypothetical situations to display the mootness of building a very expensive wall. He also used the statistic that 20-40% of illegal immigrants come from expired visas, rather than simply crossing the border, so this expenditure wouldn’t be getting rid of illegal immigrants entirely.

After nearly twenty years after the Supreme court case United States v. Virginia,  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg visits VMI to discuss the case. Her argument began with the fact that the service academies, as government institutions, were forced to accept women almost twenty years before VMI, and that the reaction over time was not what everyone thought it was going to be: the academies were still alive and well. She also noted the case, Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, in which a man wanted to apply for the all female institution because it was the best school for nursing in his area. The verdict was that no public institution is allowed to accept only one sex. When United States v. Virginia came to the Supreme court, these past occurrences were sufficient in making VMI accept women, as it is also a public institution. Ginsburg uses this evidence to develop her one-sided argument. This type of argument is evident because even though she addresses Scalia’s argument, she merely used his first sentence in his dissent argument, “VMI is dead,” instead of going into more depth of his argument.

Weather is a confusing and daunting thing. Over the millennia, the weather has shaped this planet to create oceans, clouds, and has contributed to the erosion of hillsides to create lakes and the strangely shaped mountains in the arid regions of the planet. The Earth experienced the Ice Age, and over time, the Earth continued to increase in temperature. The same phenomenon is occurring today, but it is often misconstrued with this concept of global warming, which is an unnatural heating of the Earth as a result of human activities that cause air pollution, thus destroying the o-zone layer of the atmosphere. Global warming is not caused by humans, but rather by the natural heating of the Earth. The Forbes article, Climate Change: ‘Hoax’ Or Crime Of The Century?, by Mark Hendrickson, typifies this end of the controversy. Hendrickson states that the data collected for the purposes of proving that man-made carbon emissions is not accurate because there are, “few long-term records from either the southern hemisphere or the 71 percent of the planet that is covered by water [and] distortions from the urban heat-island effect and other faulty siting[s]” (Hendrickson). He also asserts that the best measurements are collected by satellite, where no atmosphere increases the reading of the temperature. Hendrickson goes on to disprove the argument that CO2 emissions are not the main source of climate change, as stated by “climate change alarmists,” and that it is actually water vapor that contributes to much of this greenhouse effect. He cites information from the book, Climategate, by Brian Sussman, that human contribution to greenhouse gases is only .9%. It is true that air pollution is not good for the environment, but the claim that it is heating up the Earth is incorrect.

Reference:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/09/16/climate-change-hoax-or-crime-of-the-century/#60c3cacb1458