wk3-discussion

2. Summary sentence

Kristof understands that if the government can improve strategies of gun regulation, America will experience a reduction in gun homicide among the citizens.

What is the author’s argument on the topic?

The author argues that guns have long remained a significant threat to human life since they are not adequately regulated. It is their uncontrolled use nature that leads to high rates of homicide cases, something that many people consider not true. However, in reality, society is negatively affected by the high presence of guns among members of society.

3. Introduction of author’s evidence (quote)

Kristof (2019) provides cases of reported homicides where guns are used and compares them with the number of motor vehicle accidents. He also demonstrates how vehicles are regulated to prevent instances of accidents by drivers having a series of rules to comply with something that is not applied when it comes to guns. For instance, Kristof states, "one constraint, the argument goes, is the Second Amendment. Yet the paradox is that a bit more than a century ago, there was no universally recognized individual right to bear arms in the United States. However, there was widely believed to be a "right to travel" that allowed people to drive cars without regulation" (p. 163).

4. Identify one writing strategy (rhetorical mode) the author uses to make their argument.

The author uses a comparing and contrasting writing strategy to show the difference in different scenarios for people to understand what it is like and what it would be like in the case proposed measures are put in place.

· What is your position on the topic?

Guns are important for personal and public use as they help increase levels of security. However, there should be a lot of control measures on how and when they should be used. There should be clear penalties for the abuse of guns as this would help reduce increasing cases of gun abuse, a reality that has been ignored for a long time.

5. Do you agree or disagree with the author? Why?

Yes, I agree with the author because there have been many cases where licensed gun holders have used guns wrongly, leading to loss of life, and no action has been taken against them as they have been able to argue that they felt that their safety was being threatened. It is important for gun owners to be controlled so they can stop risking the lives of people who do not own guns.

Describe reasons why someone might disagree with the author's stance.

Someone might disagree with the author's argument since there are many other causes of death and that guns only contribute a fraction of the total number of deaths. Somebody opposing might argue that causes of death are diverse and only focusing on guns might not have any noticeable impact, so not much attention should be granted.

6. Introduce a source from library that supports your view

Leah Gernreich: It's a national shame that guns have been exempted from product safety regulation. She says if we continue with business as usual, guns will kill more Americans than cars by 2015. New York is not one of these states thanks to strong laws that keep guns out of the wrong hands.

7. Describe the author's audience and a possible opposing view

The government is the main target audience who would benefit from reading this since it is the body with the power to control the use of guns and can take action from arguments raised.

8. Conclusion (summarize the main points of the essay and your response)

Our blind spot about guns by Nicholas Kristof raises an important aspect of how guns contribute to the mortality rate. With valid evidence provided, it is evident a lot of homicide cases are made possible due to gun accessibility. Hence, effective control measures can go a long way in reducing the national mortality rate.

Paragraph Outline

9. Introduction and end with the thesis sentence (main idea) from above

Kristof {2019) uses his article “our blind spot about guns” to argue that gun regulations are not as strict as restrictions imposed on cars. He uses an example of how these regulations have worked well in cars since they have reduced mortality rates by 95%. Therefore, Kristof posits that changing these regulations would help save many people's lives. Throughout his arguments, Kristof makes it clear that there are fewer restrictions on gun regulations than restrictions imposed on cars, but changing these restrictions will change the lives of many people.

10. A full summary of the article

Throughout his essay, Kristof (2019) understands that if the government can improve strategies of gun regulation, America will experience a reduction in gun homicide among the citizens. His essay explores how car regulation has greatly changed and reduced the number of mortalities. However, negligence in gun usage has been one of the leading causes of mortality among Americans. Kristof further delves into how people respond to his plea for gun regulation. He cites that many people ask about his hypocritical need to take guns away from law-abiding users, but cars cannot be seized after an accident. According to Kristof, such arguments illustrate how the nation has a blind spot regarding guns. He concludes his piece by challenging policymakers on the need to impose safety measures to save people's lives from gun-related deaths just like how they imposed strict measures to save the lives of Americans from accidents.

11. Analyze what evidence the author makes his or her point. Use a quote.

Kristof (2019) provides cases of reported homicides where guns are used and compares them with the number of motor vehicle accidents. For instance, Kristof states, "one constraint, the argument goes, is the Second Amendment. Yet the paradox is that a bit more than a century ago, there was no universally recognized individual right to bear arms in the United States. However, there was widely believed to be a "right to travel" that allowed people to drive cars without regulation" (p. 163). Kristof further posits that organizational bodies such as the National Rifle Association supported gun control and never opposed the gun control act in 1969.

Kristof argues that “since then, most attempts at safety regulation have stalled or gone backward” (Kristof, 2019). He also demonstrates how vehicles are regulated to prevent instances of accidents by drivers having a series of rules to comply with, “we didn’t ban cars, or send black helicopters to confiscate them…. We made cars safe.” This is something that is not applied when it comes to guns.

12. Analyze what rhetorical mode or strategy—description, compare and contrast, definition, cause, and effect—uses and how this supports his or her message.

Kristof (2019) employs a comparison and contrast writing strategy to show the difference in different scenarios for people to understand what it is like and what it would be like in the case proposed measures are put in place. By comparing and contrasting how measures and strict regulations have worked to mitigate car accidents, Kristof tries to show that if strict regulations can be imposed on gun usage, just like how they have been blended into car usage, Americans will be safer and free from gun violence. According to Kristof, gun control measures will not eliminate gun-related violence and deaths; however, "if a combination of measures could reduce the toll by a third, that would be 10,000 lives saved every year" (Kristof, 2019). He concludes his essay by arguing policymakers and Americans react to unregulated gun usage in the same way they reacted to unregulated vehicle usage, which prompted restrictions that have saved the lives of many Americans.

Your Response to the Author and Position on the Topic

· Introduction of why you agree or disagree

I agree with Kristof’s argument on how unregulated gun usage has been an issue of concern in America and across nations. Over the years, there have been many cases where licensed gun holders have used guns wrongly, leading to loss of life, and no action has been taken against them as they have been able to argue that they felt that their safety was being threatened. It is important for gun owners to be controlled so they can stop risking the lives of people who do not own guns. People might argue that many factors can trigger death; however, if accident-related deaths can be regulated, gun usage can also be regulated.

14. Introduce a source from the library that supports your view. Respond to it.

Many people, including scholars, can agree with Kristof’s argument that gun usage should be regulated as a strategic measure to mitigate gun-related violence and deaths. According to an article by Greene-Colozzi and Silva (2022), 634 firearms were used in 348 mass shootings between 1966 and 2018. The study findings show that legally acquired handguns are among the leading causes of gun-related shootings, violence, and deaths. More so, the article establishes that the availability of semiautomatic rifles and the easy acquisition of guns has increased casualties. Therefore, Kristof’s argument for gun regulation calls on policymakers to consider its advantages in saving the lives of many Americans.

15. Describe the author’s audience and one possible opposing point. Counterargue that point.

Some might argue that cars kill people, so "why can't the government ban the use of cars." The truth is that this is a form of turning a blind eye to gun usage. The government is the main target audience who would benefit from reading this since it is the body with the power to control the use of guns and can take action from arguments raised. Cars have been regulated intelligently through the establishment of evidence-based measures to address car accidents and related fatalities. Today, gun violence has resurged, prompting the need to address the issue.

16. Conclude the essay and why others should adopt your view.

Our blind spot about guns by Nicholas Kristof raises an important aspect of how guns contribute to the mortality rate. With valid evidence provided, it is evident a lot of homicide cases are made possible due to gun accessibility. Hence, effective control measures can go a long way in reducing the national mortality rate. If American policymakers and politicians agreed with Kristof’s argument about guns and the need to regulate their usage, there would be a significant reduction in gun-related violence and deaths in the country. A lot has been done to reduce car accidents; therefore, the same energy can also be channeled into the gun sector.

References

Greene-Colozzi, E. A., & Silva, J. R. (2022). Contextualizing firearms in mass shooting incidents: A study of guns, regulations, and outcomes.  Justice Quarterly,  39(4), 697-721.