theshocker69

Rebuttal-theshocker69

The largest argument for gun control is that a large portion of our society seems to believe that disarming our citizens, and taking away their right to a firearm will, in turn, end gun violence. The theory is simple; if the government incorporates and enforces gun laws in an attempt to bring the sale and manufacturing of firearms to halt, while also taking guns out of the houses of American families, this will eliminate all guns from our society which will prevent gun crime. However, there are many variables that are not taken into account when the general public thinks about this theory. Although this idea sounds great at first glance with hasty deliberation, the causal chain could take many darker paths.

In his Netflix original standup special, Jim Jefferies said, “In Australia, we had guns. Right up until 1996. In 1996, Australia had the biggest massacre on Earth. It still hasn’t been beaten. Now, after that, they banned the guns. Now, in the 10 years before Port Arthur, there were 10 massacres. Since the gun ban in 1996, there hasn’t been a single massacre since… In Australia, we had the biggest massacre on Earth, and the Australian government went, ‘That’s it! No more guns!’ And we all went, ‘Yeah, all right, then. That seems fair enough, really.’Now, in America, you had the Sandy Hook massacre where little, tiny children died, and your government went, “Maybe… we’ll get rid of the big guns?'” Although this argument seems sound and valid, it is not. To compare Australia and it’s people to the citizens of the United States is illogical. They are two separate countries, with two separate cultures that hold different beliefs, with two completely different geological settings, not to mention separate political beliefs. Aside from the beliefs and feelings of individuals, Australia does not have Mexico beneath them constantly smuggling unregistered guns across their border. If we were to take firearms away from American families, we are taking away their right to protect not only themselves, but their families from the criminals who are buying these illegally transported guns. In this situation, we are essentially unarming our citizens while inadvertently arming criminals. My point is proven further, once you fact check Jim Jefferies on his statement, “since the gun ban in 1996, there hasn’t been a single massacre,” however, there have been at least twelve shootings that fit into the dictionary definition of massacre, with countless other shootings that have occurred over the past 20 years, not to mention the increase in home invasions since the ban. Jefferies also made the claim, “in the 10 years before Port Arthur, there were 10 massacres,” which again, is not true. There were over 32 massacres before their government decided to take their rights!

Another variable that must be brought into consideration is the simple fact that there will always be people breaking the law. The law does not stop people from participating in reckless activities, they only allow governmental consequences if caught committing the crime. In 1971, President Richard Nixon begun the war on drugs, a policy of which we are still feeling the negative results from. The main goal of the war on drugs was to drastically drop addiction and crime rates, spread the disastrous message of what drugs do to an individual, and most of all, eradicate addiction in America. However, the results were quite the opposite. Addiction rates skyrocketed, crime rates rose through the roof, and drug use is at an all time high not only for adults, but adolescents as well. Although drugs are illegal and punished so severely, people still choose to do them. They take on that risk. It is only logical to believe that people will still buy guns even though it is illegal, they will only be bought off of the black market. Except now, the only people who can fight back against these criminals are police officers. For that reason, if a criminal breaks into a family’s house, that family is unable to defend themselves from that criminal and they must wait an average of seven minutes before the police show up. By that time, who knows that may happen to that family.

Even further, it is absolutely ridiculous to assume that every single family in America will just hand over their guns; some people will either flat-out refuse and some guns will be left behind accidentally. It is also absurd to believe that with over 300 million guns compared to 324,118,787 American citizens. How can we reasonably ask for our government, which consists of 2.8 million people (a fraction of which enforce our laws), to remove so many guns, from so many families, in so many different locations? Logistically, this plan is near-impossible. The removal of all guns, in all families, across the entire United States is not a reasonable request. This will result in millions of families without a chance to defend themselves, while a small demographic of our population owns a weapon and have the rest of our population at their feet.

It is also unethical to expect all American citizens to hand over their guns. For numerous reasons. First, the American people do not need a constitution to tell them that they have a right to defend themselves or their loved ones. In philosopher John Locke’s words, they are a natural right given to us by nature. Second, the nullification of our second amendment cannot be warranted if there are actual uses for a firearm in a civil society.

It is unethical to take away the guns from the people of Alaska because most of the citizens that occupy the area utilize their guns for two things; food and defense. There is not much civilization within Alaska. There are very small amounts of roads, small amounts of people, or even stores in general so the people of Alaska mostly fend for themselves. Typically, the father of the house hunts to feed the family. Without their guns, their family cannot eat. To take away their right to a gun, because the rest of the country has grocery stores is inhumane. Also, even if our government were to include a clause that allowed the sale, use, and transfer of firearms in Alaska, that will be the new place where criminals can buy their guns and spread them across the country. This is one of the very few situations in where there are no grey areas.

As one can see, the creation of the firearm began a catch-22 within the American culture. However, no matter your opinion of guns in our society, it must be admitted that guns do serve a function within our civil society. Yes, there is evil in this world, and the longer life goes on, the more apparent it is and there is nothing we may ever do to stop it, but American citizens must have the option to defend themselves. No matter your stance on the argument, a gun is protection, and no American needs a piece of paper to tell them they have the right to protect their life, liberty, happiness, and family.

Works Cited

Definition Argument-theshocker69

“Assault Weapons”

Many people like to throw around the word “Assault Weapon” a lot. Reporters love utilizing the phrase as a buzzword, that delivers fear into your heart and the hearts of your loved ones. It is tossed around during debates as if nobody really knows the definition of an assault weapon. What exactly constitutes an “assault weapon”?

First we need to define what an assault rifle is. An assault rifle is any selective-fire weapon that utilizes an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. In order to be considered an assault rifle, a firearm must be capable of selective fire, have an intermediate-power cartridge with more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle, its ammunition must come from a detachable box magazine, and have an effective range of at least 110 feet. Any weapon that does not meet all of these requirements is not an assault rifle.

To make matters confusing, legislation came up with the term “Assault weapons” in an attempt to rush the idea of fear into certain firearms. Bruce Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson explain, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of ‘assault rifles.'” Assault weapons are usually defined as semi-automatic (one shot per pull of the trigger) firearms that have features that are associated with military firearms. A firearm is considered an assault weapon if it is a rifle type, semi-automatic, has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and two of the following; folding/telescoping stock, a pistol grip beneath the action of the weapon, a bayonet mount, flash suppressor/ threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher.

The M4A1 Carbine is a U.S. Military Service assault rifle. It is fully automatic and fires 950 rounds per minute. Automatic firearms are also called machine guns which were made illegal to sell or transfer in 1986 under federal law.

The Colt AR-15 is sold legally in the United States and is semi-automatic. For the reason that the it is semi-automatic, it fires much slower than the M4A1 does at only 45 rounds per minute which is comparable to other semi automatic rifles. David Kopel explained in the Wall Street Journal, “What some people call ‘assault weapons’ function like every other normal firearm- they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed… Some of these guns look like machine guns, but they do not function like machine guns.” By saying this, Kopel stresses the fact that guns like the AR-15 function just as normally as a hunting rifle does, and does not have the capability to put forward the damage that an assault rifle can create.

Not only do “assault weapons” such as the AR-15 work just like a regular hunting rifle. It also works just like every other gun sold in America; shotguns, ranch guns, and even pistols. However, the design of the gun affects the perception of many citizens who do not know any better. According to a 1998 report by the Violence Policy Center, “The weapon’s menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” Much of the population is uneducated on the topic of guns and do not understand the difference between the “menacing” AR-15 and any machine gun.

In 1989, after the Cleveland Elementary School Shooting in Stockton California that left thirty-two injured and five children dead, anti-gun lobbyists and the media began campaigning against AR-15’s and other “military style”firearms which caused the public to believe that these ordinary rifles are as dangerous as fully automatic, militaristic, machine guns. The shooter, Patrick Purdy, used a semi-automatic weapon to shoot 106 rounds in 180 seconds. Purdy then took his own life with a pistol, not an assault weapon. These numbers are easily recreateable by any semi-automatic weapon, regardless of the aesthetics of the firearm. The amount of dead and injured children would have skyrocketed had the gun been fully automatic. Although semi-automatic weapons are dangerous nonetheless, to make some of them illegal (although they each posses the same amount of power and danger) based off it’s appearance instead of its functionality is completely erroneous.

In 1994, Bill Clinton signed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protections Act) which prohibited the manufacturing and civilian transfer, possession, or use of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines for ten years, to expire on September 13, 2004. The NRA (National Rifle Association) opposed the ban, stating the fact, “‘Assault weapons’ are used in only one percent of all crimes,” which was then proven by the Department of Justice in 1999. The act also banned the transfer or possession of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices, which is defined in the act as, “any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after [September 13, 1994] that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition,” which is absurd after the realization that many guns typically take more than ten bullets. However, the Assault Weapons Ban incorporated a grandfather clause which holds that possession or transfer of weapons or ammunition that was possessed lawfully before the date of enactment is allowed. This means that while the manufacturing of these guns have come to a halt, the same amount is still on the streets in the hands of people, still holding the power to be abused.

As one can see, an “Assault Weapon” is in no way different than it’s semiautomatic counterparts. Although they may look much more intimidating than most other guns on the market, they do not function any differently. An assault weapon is just as dangerous as the pistol that just barely missed the classification. To make the assumption that they are more dangerous to our society followed by attempts to remove them from the hands of families requiring protection is the most erroneous and frightening portion of the situation. Our government means well, which is why the situation is so counterintuitive.

Works Cited

Anonymous. “The Truth About Assault Weapons.” The Truth About Assault Weapons. Anonymous, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016. <http://www.assaultweapon.info>
“Assault Rifle.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016.<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Rifle
“Federal Assault Weapons Ban.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016. <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban>
“Assault Weapon Truth: The Facts about Assault Weapons.” Assaultweapontruth. Assault Weapon Truth, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016. <http://www.assaultweapontruth.com.

Brief Causal Arguments-theshocker69

Single Cause with a Single Effect (X causes Y)

Taking guns away from our citizens will only make it easier for criminals to commit crimes against society.

Single Cause with Several Effects (X causes Y and Z)

Taking guns away from our citizens will take away freedoms granted by nature and will take away my ability to defend myself or my family.

Several Causes for a Single Effect (Both X and Y cause Z)

If guns were made illegal in America, and Mexico still sold illegal, unregistered weapons across the border then crime rates will rise substantially.

A Causal Chain (X causes Y, which causes Z)

Taking away the entire population’s guns results in a defenseless country without a militia. This opens us up to the same scenarios that brought us to our Revolutionary War.

Causation Fallacy (X does not cause Y)

Taking guns away from the American people does not make them safer.

Blind Summary-theshocker69

Mammograms may be one of the most important and most utilized medical procedure utilized by women to avoid breast cancer. However, many doctors do not have the ability to be sure about the diagnosis that they give to their patients. Following the mammogram, if the tumor is malignant, the patient is sent for a biopsy to ensure it is malignant. If there is no tumor spotted then the patient leaves and continues their lives. For this reason, many women leave the hospital after receiving a false negative; unknowing of the cancer growing inside of them. For this reason, we need smarter routes of ensuring accurate mammogram results.

Polio Notes-theshocker69

Many diseases thought to be eradicated are making a comeback because of anti-vaxxers

Polio kills 1 in 1000, paralyzing most.

Polio mostly affects children

Thrives in poorly-hygienic locations

Smallpox was eradicated from the natural world with a global inoculation effort

Some vaccines are not foolproof

Vaccines may lose efficacy over time

1-2 out of 1000 will die from measles

Most americans are vaccinated, however, many in foreign countries are not.

Disneyland January 2015

measles outbreak
- 137 in california
- migrated to 8 states and Canada
- 150 sickened in Quebec by an Anti-Vaxx group (oh the irony)
Measles was banished from US generations ago by vaccinating children (We’ve become complacent)
Parents think they have little to fear, which has increased the number of unvaccinated citizens which creates the perfect conditions for the disease to return

Polio (Polio Myelitis)

invades the Nervous System
Most often children younger than 5
No cure
Vaccine needs to be given only once for a lifetime
To eliminate polio from the earth, every child must be vaccinated until transmission stops
Enters the body through the mouth
Multiplies in intestines
Passed to others through feces
Flies can pass feces particles to food, sickening others
Most infected people are carriers of the disease until it naturally dies in their body

Vaccination created in 1961, administered by volunteers

creates antibodies in the blood to all three types of polio virus which prevent the virus from spreading to the Nervous System.
Costs less than a dime
100% immunity is not required for total eradication

1 in 3,000,000 polio vaccines cause paralysis.

Opportunity cost
Saves hundreds of thousands of people
Cost of NOT vaccinating children is catastrophically higher

152 cases of paralytic poliomyelitis from 1980-1990. 8 cases per year.

6 cases acquired outside of the US and imported
Last imported case was in 1993
2 cases indeterminate
Remaining 144 cases were vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) cased by the live polio vaccine

Vaccinations supply us with the privilege of immunity towards bacteria and viruses that could otherwise cripple or kill you. Polio Myelitis is a disease that is passed on through feces and it entered through the mouth. Flies may land on feces and transfer the bacteria to food. The disease typically invades the nervous system of a child under the age of 5, for which there is no cure. However, Polio can be avoided by utilizing vaccinations for the disease; although 1 in 3,000,000 vaccinated are infected with the disease. Not everybody who has the disease is paralyzed or killed. Many people infected with the disease are simply carriers who may infect others without knowing, until the disease dies naturally within their body.

PRACTICE OPENING

The world is too fragmented and mistrustful to ever join in a truly global effort, even to eradicate a dreaded disease.

People are like snowflakes; no two are exactly alike. Every body thinks, behaves, and responds differently to different ideas and situations. To place the amount of trust needed to eradicate a disease or join a truly global effort in the arms of society as a whole is preposterous. Before the 1960’s, there were nearly a half a million cases of measles nationally. This number dropped to around 2,000 in 1983. Then in 1989 and 1991 the diseases made a comeback. Although some vaccines are not fool-proof, vaccinations are still required for the safety of society as a whole. Further, 1 in 3,000,000 vaccinated are infected with the disease, not everybody who has the disease is paralyzed or killed. Many people infected with the disease are simply carriers who may infect others without knowing, until the disease dies naturally within their body. There are many variables that play into the attempt to eradicate a disease that is too much for the fragmented society to logically comprehend. Mandatory regulations for vaccinations must be implemented if we really want complete eradication of these terrible diseases.

Safer Saws-theshocker69

1. Creator

Steve Gass invented a woodworking device that stops the teeth of a saw within 4/1000’s of a second. Steve now is a manufacturer of the product and has never had a customer who has suffered amputation or serious injury from his saws.

2. Manufacturers

Most manufacturers believe that a large part of their demographic does not want the SawStop because it adds cost for something that they don’t need because they take proper safety precautions beforehand. Black&Decker holds firmly stating, “SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it,” since the SawStop is available online, they believe if you want that product then you should buy it directly from them.

3. Customers

The customer’s claim on the subject depends on who you ask. They will either be delighted to have it, or angry. Many customers do not like the SawStop because of the added cost, false positives (which increase cost and extend time of project), braking event poses a hazard, and they also believe that if you want this technology then you should buy it directly from the creator.

4. Industry Spokespeople

Industries such as the Power Tool Industry (PTI) argue that making all saws compatible with SawStop would be too expensive. Although it would prevent over 40,000 injuries and it’s cost, the manufacturers are not the one’s paying for it. The PTI holds that if you use the proper safety equipment and follow the proper safety procedures, that you do not need a SawStop.

5. Consumer Safety Advocates

Consumer safety advocates such as Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum seek to find solutions to reduce to amount of table saw accidents every year. They look at the 67,300 medically treated table saw accidents in 2007-2008 which resulted in $2.36 billion dollars in medical bills which have changed the lives of many families. Tenenbaum stands strong in his argument that preventable injuries are unacceptable and claims that the manufacturers are responsible.

6. Injured Plaintiffs

One injured plaintiff argued that Bosch “colluded with competitors” and lobbied the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to stop “flesh detection and braking” technology from being a requirement. He also argued that this technology has been out since his traumatic injury, and if Bosch utilized that technology then he would not have been injured. Another plaintiff extended the same argument and won 1.5 million dollars.

7. Personal Injury Lawyers

Personal injury lawyers have held companies reliable for personal injuries stating that they are liable for the reason that had the safety mechanism been utilized, their injuries would have been miniscule. Rewards have been given for medical expenses, pain and suffering.

8. Government Officials

Government officials look at the statistical side of the situation and not much else. They hold that table saws cause thousands of serious injuries every year, which costs billions of dollars to the consumer. They state that table saw safety standards have been ineffective in preventing harm. The officials maintain that there is technology that exists that can protect the consumer, therefore it should be forcefully implemented

9. News Reporters

Mother Jones made us aware that SawStop has had two reports of amputations. They also attacked the manufacturers on their arguments to not implement the SawStop technology. Mother Jones assumes that manufacturers are not utilizing the technology because they are scared of a wave of liability lawsuits. Although this very well may be true, the manufacturer’s arguments of higher prices and conductivity problems that are pointed out here are very sound. Mother Jones also talks with table saw victims for a dose of pathos to the reader.