essay

Garrett 1

Brett Garrett

Professor Renner

RWS 28(}, T. 4-7

28 February 2017

Dialogue Essay

Senate Bill1135, Senate Bill880, and Proposition 63 changed the classification of many semi-automatic

rifles to "assault weapons." The bills also modified registration requirements, causing those newly

classified rifles to be registered with local government by their owners. Proposition 63 required a permit

in order to purchase ammunition within the state and will require registration of ammunition if purchased

outside of the state but brought into the state. The change these two Senate Bills brought about affected

hundreds of thousands of rifles and owners within California (NRA-ILA Staff).

List of characters includes a doctor, an information technician, a deputy district attorney and a school

teacher.

Eric is a forty-one year old trauma surgeon. He bases his opinion on his experience dealing with firearm

related injuries, logic, and statistics. The doctor presents an argument for a large amount of gun control.

He support~ any law, both proposed and already in place, limiting gun sales or their accessories to the

public because he knows limiting the public's access will in tum limit and reduce firearm related injuries.

Daniel is a thirty-three year old information technician specializing in surveillance equipment programing

and software. He presents an argument in support of gun control, but with restrictions. The technician

works for a security company specializing in bank surveillance. While at a bank location, the bank was

subject to a take-over style bank robbery. The technician was forced to the ground and robbed of all his

valuables.

Garrett 2

Kristen, a thirty-five year old deputy district attorney, began her career with the district attorney's office

as a wet-behind-the-ears kid right out of law school. She finished school with high marks and at the top

of her class. She excelled as an attorney, prosecuting several different types of cases. She is vexed

internally-because she has seen gun violence first hand and has played a key part in the prosecution of the

suspects in different gun violence cases. However, she feels strongly in the constitution and law that this

country is built upon. She feels strongly about adherence to the constitution; therefore, she believes law

abiding citizens' rights to protect themselves against the government and others should not be impeded.

She presents a strong contrast and proved an equal opponent to the doctor.

Stephanie is a 26 year old 41 h grade teacher. She supports fewer restrictions to gun owners; but, maintains

certain core restrictions in order to achieve a minimal level of safety for everyone. She grew up in San

Diego and has experience with firearms. Her exposure to firearms began at a young age while shooting

with her father at the gun range. Her father taught her safe gun handling skills and did not push firearm

training on her.

Location:

At the Baker Family reunion everyone was eating and enjoying each other's company. There were 2

cousins, Stephanie and Kristen talking to their uncle, Eric, and one of their in-laws, Daniel. It has been a

long time since everyone has seen each other and they had some catching up to do. Eric began to tell them

about his day a work and that he lost yet another one of his patients to a gun wound. Eric explained that

he is seeing more and more gun wound victims come into the hospital and succumb to their injuries. Eric

expressed his anger about gun violence and that it needs to come to an end. Although everyone could

agree that, that was unfortunate, they all had their own opinions on ~ns and how they should be

controlled. Stephanie, who does not agree with the new gun control laws, started the conversation.

Stephanie: Can you believe these new laws California recently passed?

Garrett 3

Eric: I take it you don't agree with the new legislation handed down? You know it was voted in by the

public in California?

Stephanie: No, I don't. I think those new Senate Bills are ridiculous.

Eric: I have seen gun violence on the rise, unfortunately, and it is the innocent victims that pay the heavy

price.

Eric: Having spent a lot of time in the trauma center, I have seen first-hand the damage carnage firearms

of different shapes, sizes and classifications cause. They cause major trauma and death without any

consciousness.

Stephanie: I agree that firearms were designed to inflict injury; period. Fact is we have them in our

society and as such bad people with bad intentions have access to firearms. We can't expect good people

to become defenseless and think that is the answer.

Daniel: You're right; but, we cannot stand by on the sidelines. There must be some restrictions. The

general public should not have access to weaponry designed solely for the purpose of taking human life.

Senate Bills 1135 and 880 will do nothing but make us safer by clearly classifying those weapons and

removing them from circulation. The bills thereby made it harder for the bad guys to get their hands on

assault weapons. And, I for one supported it whole-heartedly.

Kristen: Regulation will not make this country safer. Deregulation will. Bad people will still find ways

to obtain firearms. They do not follow the law just because we voted something into law. Responsible

gun owners follow the law and become more vulnerable every time a regulation is imposed on them.

Let's get more guns in the hands of responsible gun owners and bad people will think twice before they

try to do harm to good people.

Eric: It really, truly is upsetting to hear those words even being suggested. If deregulation occurs, my

coworkers and I should gear up for more violence victims in our hospitals. I, for one, am tired of treating

Garrett 4

gun violence victims because it is preventable. Let's ban together and stop this senseless violence.

Violence is not the answer to violence. Access prevention and supply decline will keep guns out of

everyone's hands and will, subsequently, keep everyone safer.

Stephanie: I have worked in the education system for several years now and everyone wants to talk about

the school shootings. Unfortunately, they are nothing new. The first school shooting on record occurred

in 1764 (k12academics.com). A school campus within the United States has suffered from gun violence

142 times since 2013 (newsweek.com). It sure seems to me the erosion ofthe rights of responsible gun

owners has contributed to this drastic increase. Losing one child is a terrible loss and sadly possibly a

preventable one in some circumstances. When these cowardly predators have been confronted by armed

citizens or law enforcement the loss of life becomes drastically lower.

Eric: I'll say it again; violence is not the answer to violence. What are we supposed to do, put a cop on

every street comer? I don't think so. The police can't be everywhere. If we stop the access to guns by

everyone the bad people won't have access either. It's simple really. You mentioned you thought some of

these acts were preventable. They are if we remove firearms from the equation. Firearms belong in the

military and the military only.

Kristen: Let's look at that argument for a minute. Illegal drugs have been around for a while now and we

have tried to remove them from the equation without much success. I think the removal of firearms from

responsible people will only increase their odds of becoming victims of gun violence. Bad people will

always find a way to arm themselves if they are motivated to do so. Removal of firearms will bolster and

empower those bad people to do more harm to other they know will be unarmed.

Daniel: You both seem to have sotne reasonable points. We need to keep guns out of our school and

deregulation does not strike me as the way to do it. However, I do not think we can ever truly remove

guns from our culture. Our culture was built on firearm ownership and it was so important our founding

fathers mentioned second only to freedom of speech.

Garrett 5

Kristen: Part of this new law package imposes registration by those who own guns now deemed as assault

weapons into a government-run database. The government already tracks its own people enough. What

good will another database do? If people are grandfathered into ownership they should be free from

having to -register with the government.

Eric: It is not about the tracking and what information the government has it is about public safety. The

public is in danger and this is how we can do our part to at least slow the violence. If we can save just

one life this whole process will be a success and not a waste of time. If I could just take back one victim

that I lost on that table I would do anything to do.

Stephanie: I remember the first day I went hunting with my dad. I had practiced at the range for days

(separated out over months) in preparation for our hunt. We practiced safety first, then shooting, then

accuracy. I worked hard to be able to show my dad I could safely handle a firearm and secondly that I

could shoot what I was aiming at. I was so excited to when I woke up that morning. We left our house at

3 a.m. just to get an early start and give ourselves the best odds. We sat there all day with nothing. Just

as we were getting ready to pack up for the day we saw some movement. It wasn't the biggest deer; but

he was big enough to take. We called him in closer to our position. I was able to get a clean shot and it

was successful. To this day it was one of the fondest memories I have with my father. If we continue

down this path of gun control, I fear generations to follow may miss out on these experiences, or similar

ones, I was able to share with my father.

Eric: I can't believe how much you cherish your ability to take life.

Stephanie: It's not about that at all. You are missing the point. We used almost all of that animal for

food. We would never shoot an animal just for sport. I worked hard "to make that day a success. And it

turned out to be a day I do cherish with my dad growing up.

Garrett 6

Dan: That sounds like a great story Stephanie. I am glad you got a chance to bond with your father like

that. I think we need to protect some rights so those stories can continue in our cultural.

Kristen: That's a perfect example of responsible gun ownership. We can't give that up. We need to

continue to fight to protect those rights.

Eric: Let me tell you about a story of my own. I came into work just like any other night. Then all hell

broke loose. It was about 7 p.m. and we had a very busy night in the emergency room. Suddenly, we got

the call from the fire department they were transporting a young child with a gun-shot wound to the arm.

The child was playing at a friend's house and the friend brought out the family's gun to play with it. The

gun went off and the child was hit in the arm. The bullet hit an artery in the arm and the injuries were

extremely life threatening. We prepared for the operations to come before the child arrived. We spent 18

hours in surgery trying to save the child's life. Luckily, we were successful. The child lived; but had

severely less movement from the effected arm. The child was in the hospital for weeks and recovery was

bumpy. And the child was lucky. What about the ones that don't make it?

Garrett 7

Works Cited NRA-ILA Staff. California: governaor Brown SignsAnti-Gun Bills. 01 July 2016. Article. 5 February 2017.

< https:/ /www. n ra ila .o rg/ a rticles/20160701/ ca liforn ia-governo r-brown-signs-a nti-gu n-bills>.

Peer Review Questions.docx

Peer Review Questions

 

Directions: Using these questions as guidelines, write a 2-4+ page typed critique. Staple your critique to the back of your peer’s essay. Turn in his/her marked, commented-upon essay with your critique.

 

1 In general, what do you like best about this essay? What is convincing?

2 What makes you think? Is there anything creative that is especially effective?

3 Is this topic one that was specifically recommended? If not, what makes it work for this assignment? Or if it doesn’t quite work, can you suggest a way to adjust it?

4 Is the author’s opinion obvious to you? (It shouldn’t be.) How can s/he provide more balance?

 

CHARACTERS

1 Is each character both credible and necessary? Would an “undecided student” help to clarify things? To what extent is the character a stereotype? Specifically how can the writer make the character less predictable?

2  In one or two sentences, explain each character’s point of view as you see it, and then analyze the relative quality of each. Remember, all characters and their arguments should be strong; each character should contribute to the discussion in a positive way.  Avoid making the debate “realistic” if that means one side is unimpressive.

ARGUMENTS

1 Can you think of specific arguments that will need to be covered in the next draft? (For example, in an essay about capital punishment, does the author leave out racial or financial aspects?) Which arguments are the strongest to you at this point? Do any overpower the others? Which are still somewhat weak?

2 Has the author incorporated philosophical arguments yet? If so, did they seem appropriate? What “big questions” can you suggest adding?  (The more, the better…)

3 What needs to be developed further? What still seems vague or undeveloped? What additions/clarifications should be made? What is the weakest part of the essay so far?

4 Is there anything else that should be covered?

 

 

1 Go over your copy of the essay carefully, circling mechanical and MLA errors. If you can, comment on recurring grammatical or spelling errors.