Rebuttal -NewEditionLover

“Do We Just Accept Gun Violence”

However guns are not just causing the tragic violence and horrible message that it simply portrays.Guns help by eliminating enemies in time of a real altercations like wars. Any attempt to limit gun ownership, let alone eliminate them, is met with vehement resistance. Guns create an order of protection as  they can be used as a means for a safe haven. The thought of me saying that guns are a good deed may have some cringing on their toes right now.Banning guns would certainly reduce injuries and gun deaths, and we are all in favor of that. An outright gun ban is unlikely, but we could greatly reduce the problem guns pose if we opposed them with one voice.Next to not injure people and not have this stigma on guns authorized users must exhibit to some type of mental illness testing to show that they are well and not sick in the head. According to an article “Mental Illness, Mass shootings, and the politics of firearms” stated that a number of states passed bills that required mental health professionals to report “dangerous patients” to local officials, who would then be authorized to confiscate any firearms that these persons might own. “People who have mental health issues should not have guns,” This quote emphasizes the importance of mental health test and the screening precautions they take to to prevent disasters.

To make this world a safe place again we must not eliminate guns as a whole! To not injure anyone we must further conclude that guns can belong in homes,  can be carried by individual’s, and should  be in use of anyone with special authority. I feel as though we are in a great area of protection and for the most part if we are in direct need we have a lot of assistance to help us in need. Next one condition that can be made is by doing background checks on all participants that are trying to purchase guns.  Guns aren’t safe but if you get a background check this may ensure that you’re not crazy or trying to do something illegal. The article “Everything You Need To Know About Background Checks by Miles Kohrman and Jennifer Mascia states that The overwhelming majority of gun background checks take just minutes to clear the would-be buyer. Only 2 percent result in a rejection because of a disqualifying record in the shopper’s personal history. Although the background checks are concluded we still have some who still might finesse the system still being able to receive the gun.”And then there are the people who slip through the cracks and obtain guns they should have been barred from possessing — sometimes with deadly consequences.” The gunmen in the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting, Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre, and Virginia Tech rampage each had a history that banned them from owning firearms. Yet none were stopped, because of omissions and loopholes in the system.” I believe that with our countries history of gun violence its in the best interest that we put an immediate stop to anyone who seeks or previously seeked psychiatric or some sort trying to obtain any kind of firearm no matter what it is.

If we keep more guns away then there will be less deaths! Gun Violence in the United State’s is one of the most causing leads of death’s today. If guns were safer then more people would be getting injured or killed less. My father was killed July 1 ,2011 to gun violence. In addition the man who was accused of shooting and murdering my father was not authorized to be carrying a firearm and the gun was pronounced stolen. In this case of a stolen gun this man never had to go through the stages of getting a background check. Next this causes many of new theories in my head ,just like this man there are other people  who always find ways to get whatever they need in the moment. Since the man accused of the murder was one under the age to own a gun permit that should of raised a flag from whatever person that he purchased the gun from. Although Camden may be dangerous to some people it is a great home and can teach you a lot about this so called world we live in. It was about one am as my father drove the streets of Haddon Avenue in the Park side area as he was approached to a 20 year old man with a gun. My father defended himself to the best of his abilities as he fought to stay alive. In addition some may state it was a weird timing for your father to be out that late ,which it was and I will never know why he was out that late but he was. My father was reportedly shot 12 times and his death approached within a few hours later. Now I must say. how did at the time 20 year old Denzel Satterfield get a authorized weapon ? Things like this make me question the system of background check and other policies that we enforce so heavily in our state. In addition cops concluded that Denzel was not of the age requirements to have an authorized weapon or was never given a background check. Next this shows how many people who are criminals slip through the system everyday and do not need background checks to make them a gun holder.

Guns can be very safe if used correctly! Guns were typically used for military and war purposes to fight battles and other such things.”But the difference between guns here and guns elsewhere is that here in America, they are constitutionally protected. “The constitution declares that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” In addition back in the day guns were needed and there was never really a policy or law on why people had guns. Next but now that the law of guns is more complex there is a problem. Later guns were used against our rivals and keeping our country safe as far into keeping and remaining a free country. Guns could be safe and a way to better justify it is if you want to use a gun then I further hence you to join the army or a place some other type of legal action that will continue fighting for the United States Of America. This wouldn’t be an discussion if people were fighting for us but instead they are fighting and killing each other. Now for instance if guns were used the correct way the world today would have less of a problem with guns because it would be seen as a positive reinforcement instead of a negative sight.

Guns have been around for decades and may have good and bad intentions but we have to protect the country in ways that people are know using them for ,but people shouldn’t be allowed to purchase guns in bulk. Bulk Gun Purchases article concludes that “Laws limiting the number of firearms a person can purchase within a certain time frame help reduce the number of guns that enter the secondary market—weapons that are more likely to wind up at the scene of a crime. Commonsense regulation of bulk gun purchases is an easy way to reduce gun trafficking and, in turn, gun violence.” In addition this  quote emphasizes what I’ve been stating throughout the entire paper , reducing the number of guns once is permitted to have makes a better environment so gun violence is prohibited or prevented in general. Next the limit of firearm are doomed to be lower and show that fewer guns are traced back to crimes. In comparison to the article by Giffords Law Center state that sixty six percent of guns were recovered in New Jersey New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts combined.

Furthermore Federal law does not limit the number of guns a person may buy in any given time period. However, federal law does require federal firearm licensees (“FFLs”) to report multiple sales of handguns to ATF and other specified law enforcement agencies. This reporting requirement was created to enable law enforcement to “monitor and deter illegal interstate commerce in pistols and revolvers by unlicensed persons,” though there is no federal requirement that law enforcement actually investigate illegal trafficking.” which connects back into the theory that multiple purchases are not accepted as they may come off as a criminal act. In addition this reinforces the positive message that illegal actives will not be tolerated and this all together will prevent gun violence all over the country.

Works Cited –https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/background-checks-nics-guns-dylann-roof-charleston-church-shooting/

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-guns-in-United-States-culture

4 thoughts on “Rebuttal -NewEditionLover”

  1. New Edition, I don’t usually make grammar and style recommendations as the first feedback on an essay, but in your case I need to beg you to eliminate the rhetoric and simply speak as directly as you possibly can. You “extra” and “ornamental” language always misfires, creating confusion instead of clarity. Permit me please to interpret your first few sentences into simple English.

    Are guns worth the tragic violence and horrible message that it simply portrays ?

    1. (better) Are the supposed advantages of guns worth the tragic violence they cause?
    2. (even better) The supposed advantages of guns are not worth the tragic violence they cause, and our tolerance for them sends the horrible message that we don’t care about victims and survivors.

    Removing guns from this world would cause ample amount of conversation and publicity.

    1. (better) Any attempt to remove guns from this world would cause a lot of publicity.
    2. (even better) Any attempt to limit gun ownership, let alone eliminate them, is met with vehement resistance.

    In order for less people to be injured and killed the banning of guns should have everyone standing on their toes.

    1. (better) Everyone should be in favor of fewer injuries and gun deaths.
    2. (even better) Banning guns would certainly reduce injuries and gun deaths, and we are all in favor of that.

    The likeliness of this happening is very slim but if everyone could take an stance or have a voice to be heard then there would be less problematic.

    1. (better) An outright gun ban is unlikely, but we could greatly reduce the problem guns pose if we opposed them with one voice.
    2. (even better) To ban or reduce gun sales, ownership, and use, we’ll have to organize our resistance.

    Notice in the new sentences there are no metaphors or figures of speech.

    The claims are clear and usually quantitative (Any attempt, Everyone, fewer injuries, banning guns, reduce injuries, we all favor that, unlikely, greatly reduce, oppose with one voice, reduce sales, organize our resistance).

    Like

  2. NEL, your reader will have to be excused for not being able to figure out what you’re arguing in Paragraph 2. You start by saying guns should be banned everywhere for all citizens who are not (I guess) military or law enforcement.

    But then you appear to argue for a smaller provision instead: the use of background checks to keep guns from SOME hands. As soon as you make the claim for background checks, though, you undercut the claim by pointing out that they stop only 2% of sales, and that even that small number can be reduced by “finesse.” Finally, you suggest that background checks don’t actually keep guns from the hands of the worst offenders, all or most of whom would have been able to get guns legally. Then, when you should be making clear which of these several positions you promote, you instead ask a question.

    Also, we can’t tell where your quotations begin and end in this paragraph. I’m guessing from the language of the quoted material that there are two long quotes here, but the punctuation is very misleading.

    Like

  3. The purpose of your third paragraph is unclear, NEL. Of course you would want to have kept the gun from the hands of your father’s killer, but your question “How did he come to possess an authorized firearm” is very confusing. WAS HE authorized to carry the gun he used that early morning? You don’t say so. IF HE WAS, then he must have passed a background check. So, are you arguing that the check was useless? Or are you arguing that the check was lax and should have prevented him from getting a permit? Again, you fail to say clearly what you want. You simply say that events like your father’s murder “make you question.”

    I’m sorry, but that’s not good enough, NEL. The point of a Research Paper is to present evidence that DRAWS CONCLUSIONS. Asking questions is good at the beginning of your research. Once it’s concluded, though, you need to take a stand.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s