Where guns have taken lives
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/nyregion/connecticut-legislators-agree-on-far-reaching-gun-control.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/28/us/connecticut-shooting-documents
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/shooting-at-colorado-theater-showing-batman-movie.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Where guns have saved them
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
My main argument lies in this one website above.
The question i hope to argue is do Guns save more than they kill?
And justify the fine line
between someone who can own a gun and who cannot.
But can these measures prevent killers from finding weapons?
I believe that we should have a tracking device on every gun ever issued in the world;Police included.If we could track every gun that was ever bought then we could stay safe and monitor all gun activity.
However some claim that "Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).They have saved more lives than they have taken"
I would be lying if i said guns don't protect people.I think the question we must ask ourselves it at what cost? Guns should be allowed but we must have a tight leash as to who gets them and track their movement.If the following methods are put into action i think all these shootings could have been avoided.
I think that we could sorta of debate off this blog instead of just posting one after the other i think it would be great to get the comments going in an argumentative direction what do you guys think?
I agree and disagree with you Shivani. Unknowingly, I also posted an argument about gun control as well! I believe that there should definitely be stricter gun control laws but that only stops some of the problems. Thorough background checks and proper selling would have prevented much of what has happened. But, what about the problems this issue creates? There are many people who still believe that they have a right to guns. They are supported by the NRA, who has an unfair advantage. That advantage is that they have power and money, which they use to make sure there are no more restrictions on gun laws. This issue of gun laws will definitely lead to a split in the nation. Also, for the trackers, what is the guarantee that they will ensure safety? Yes, they can be tracked but other than location what can they give? They can't tell us if someone was killed or what the exact situation is. However, I think the trackers would work in the sense that we can make sure they don't fall into the hands of bad people. As we can see, there is a good side and bad side to every problem.
ReplyDeleteI think that it's really great that you guys want to interact more with each other. Would it help if I posted something for all of you to respond to, instead of each of you picking different things?
ReplyDeleteComments on OP:
Instead of just including a link to the argument you want to use, you should do a brief summary of the most important points to your position. This is good practice for the "Facts" section of your argumentative speech.
Most of your claims are too broad and are opinions rather than arguments. Arguments need to be substantiated with reasons why x is better than y, as well as acknowledgement and discussion about the potential pitfalls of x. Example: All guns should be tracked. This is so that we can better regulate who owns guns, which is better than having random people own guns. However, all guns sold legally ARE tracked (so your claim isn't really an argument...). It's illegal guns on the black market and such that are the exception, and it doesn't seem like your argument is prepared to answer this complication.
"If the following methods" means that you will some sort of plan of redress following afterwards, which you don't. Incorrect signposting will confuse your reader and make it harder to follow your argument, especially since the reader cannot go back and reread an oral argument!
I would recommend developing your points more in depth. Right now the writing is very general in nature and isn't very argumentative in the sense that it makes claims but doesn't provide proof.
One of the goals of writing these assignments is to provoke debate with yourself. You can't rely on other people to give you all the perspectives that differ from your own. You need to be able to come up with other, viable perspectives as well.