Analytic Essay
Revision: (300 words, which strategies employed)
Over the past few weeks I employed a variety of revision practices to my writing in this essay. I first began with reading my paper aloud to myself, and continued to as I wrote the paper. Initially I had very empty pages, and only two of the parts of the essay were fully written. I must admit the stylistic shift from regular English writing to Philosophical writing was extremely challenging for myself. And so, I employed my father, who lucky, or unlucky, for me is a retired schoolteacher of 25+ years. The majority of my revisions came from his advice, both from reading the paper aloud to each other, as well as physical notes taken and applied to, on several different drafts. I can only hope that the revisions I have made result in what is at least a halfway decent paper.
I: Intro
In Injury Prevention, Daniel Hemenway, Matthew Miller, and Deborah Azrael, state that firearms, to a great extent, escalate non-lethal confrontations in to lethal ones. This escalation, combined with the prevalence and ease of access to guns, increases the likelihood of deadly confrontation between citizens. This premise supports their conclusion that we should introduce legislation that limits or minimizes access to, or the ownership of guns. In this paper, I will discuss the flaws in the causal reasoning between the two.
II: Outline of the argument
I have summarized the article: Injury Prevention, by Daniel Hemenway, Matthew Miller, and Deborah Azrael to clarify the issue and arguments pertinent to our discussion:
Premise: Guns escalate conflicts toward lethal outcomes.
Premise: History, laws and culture encourage gun ownership.
As a result, rapidly escalating conflicts, plus more guns, equal more lethal confrontations.
Also, Changing our laws, and limiting the availability of guns would make these conflicts, less lethal.
Therefore, we should enact stricter gun control policies.
III: Exposition of Argument
1. Guns escalate conflicts toward lethal outcomes.
In 21st century American society, rapid escalation of confrontations are seemingly more prevalent than past times. We live in a greatly increased pace of living, compared to even a generation ago. Increased innovation and advancements in technology, come with increased societal pressures and time pressure. From childhood we have been conditioned to expect instant gratification, for both desires and resolution of conflict. The idea of exercising restraint and walking away from a conflict is the opposite characterization of nearly every movie hero portrayed in today’s media. These heroes take no “disrespect” and decisively settle any challenge or threat to themselves, more often than not, using a firearm. The most notable of these, from John Wayne, to Rambo, to Denzel Washington in the Equalizer. Unfortunately, our modern, urban Americans are far more likely to respond to a conflict by replicating these heros, in a lethal and violent manner. If a gun is available, it is far more likely to be used, and it’s very presence can and will turn a non-lethal situation into a lethal one.
2. History, laws and culture encourage gun ownership.
Due to the history of our nation, our founding fathers included in the constitution, amendment two, guaranteeing the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. As the Constitution, is considered the supreme law of the land, no law can be passed that contradicts it. This makes it extremely difficult to pass any law limiting gun ownership. Ownership and use of a gun, are considered by many to be as “American” as apple pie and baseball. Many even see a gun as a fashion accessory. This is certainly borne out in the media images we consume, and are influenced by, for hours each day. These factors have created a popular demand for guns which big business is very happy to fill. In 2013, the year after the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre, U.S. gun-makers manufactured nearly 11 million guns, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.1 Thus, guns are virtually everywhere, weather legally or illegally obtained, it is very easy to have a gun readily available for use in a conflict.
3. Conflicts escalating rapidly, plus more guns, equal more lethal confrontations.
News headlines depict almost daily tragedies such as; school shootings, road rage, terrorism, and armed robberies. All events in which participants created and suffered much more tragic results than would have been possible without the availability of guns.
Gun ownership, in the majority of modern nations, with the exception of the United States, is severely restricted. Many in this country would like to see the same policies enacted here. Unfortunately, historical interpretations of the second amendment of the Constitution, as well as the popularity of gun ownership make it extremely difficult to enact such restrictions. Unless both the supply and demand for guns are diminished, more violence will be the result.
4. Changing our laws, would make the day to day conflicts, less lethal.
A government’s number one job is to protect its citizens, we are quick to enact laws restricting substances and practices which endanger our citizens. Entire federal agencies are devoted to this mission; The Food and Drug administration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, are examples. One would think we would also effectively enact changes in our current policies that enable and encourage such a clear and present danger to so many U.S. citizens.
5. We should enact stricter gun control policies
Citizens and lawmakers should be motivated to break the cycle or conflict escalation and violence exacerbated by the availability and use of guns. The purpose of our laws are to protect citizens from such danger. Our constitutional system provides for such change. We should use the ways and means this republic provides, to enact stricter gun control policies.
IV. Your complaints about the argument presented
In the abstract we were given, the authors state “… Some percentage of these situations will actually erupt…into violence” without any statistics or sources indicating exactly what this percentage is, or even of it is a higher percentage, the validity this statement remains unproven.
They also state “ …When people are in such violent situations, the presence of guns makes it more likely that there will be death or… serious injury.” Again, no evidence is presented proving that death or serious injury are even, likely at all, let alone more likely, and if so, how much more likely.
“If you have knives, you are more likely to cause more damage than if you only have fists…”
This is only true if the knives are used. The presence of a knife, or a gun for that matter, could be just as, or even more likely to be intended to warn, or threaten, a perpertrator
If you have knives, you are more likely to cause more damage
“…Knives are only able to do so much damage…easy to escape from because they are short range weapons.”
The United States government’s job is not to interfere and meddle in the confrontations of its citizens. It is to keep them safe, providing they abide the prescribed laws, and to also provide justice when such laws are broken. When it comes to owning a gun, there are already perfectly equitable and dependable policies and regulations, that have proven to keep citizens out of harm’s way. The policies are straightforward and effective; So-called violent or lethal altercations simply do not occur on a day to day basis amongst common, legally abiding gun owners. Furthermore, the problem does not lie with these average citizens, and more restrictive laws for them just aren’t necessary. These aforementioned lethal altercations occur in the midst of other criminal activity, of and by criminals, and others who couldn’t legally obtain a gun in the first place, let alone follow the laws regarding it. So it follows, that the problem here lies in the abuse of these laws. Laws that would, and will be, broken by select groups anyway, regardless of enforcement, or increased regulations.
V. What the author would say about your objection
Hemenway, et al. will likely respond to this argument simply by claiming the conclusion is false. It is easy for anyone, legal gun owner or not to abuse guns, because our laws allow them to. The laws are too simple, and too lenient. Guns can fall into the hands of anyone today, it’s not just average, everyday citizens forgetting to license their firearm, or your average heroin dealer providing “protection” for themselves. We are talking about allowing people who have committed hate crimes, children, and people who are mentally ill and not fully aware of what they are doing, to handle a gun, and fire it, if they so choose. Guns are almost common home furnishings in some states, and they are quite literally everywhere in sight. And because of this, it allows and creates exponentially more opportunities to violence to occur by anyone. If the guns weren’t there in the first place (provided by stricter gun laws), there would be less and less of a chance of someone firing one, and therefore less of a chance of adverse effects attached to that, such as death. By the implementation of these laws, it creates a safer environment for all, and the need for protection by owning a gun would significantly be reduced.
VI. Your final assessment of the argument
Sources Cited
Horsley, Scott. “Guns In America, By The Numbers.” NPR, NPR, 5 Jan. 2016, www.npr.org/2016/01/05/462017461/guns-in-america-by-the-numbers.