Chicago 2- Guns on Campus

Draft 2

"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." (U.S. Const. amend. II). This is the second amendment in exact words. This topic has been, and until solved, up for debate and controversy. The main argument for those who are against gun control is that it is a right that “shall not be infringed” ( U.S. Const. amend. II). If guns were truly to be banned it would be going against the constitution, and therefore the rights of the people. Guns should be limited as anyone could be buy a gun and the country will have another mass-shooting on its hands.

According to gunviolencearchive.org, whom update on a daily basis, about 50,000 incidents have been linked to guns this year (2017). This causes a raise of alarms in people as 50,000 is a lot of incidents related to guns. This is verifies the argument of people who are for pro-gun control. This argument has been is supported by the fact that according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there have been an approximate total of 33,000 deaths related to guns (). This is more than 50% of the 50,000 reported incidents involving guns themselves.This again supports the idea that the government should pass a law that would end up restricting guns for the public. Although, one argument would be that the same statistics given by the CDC says that out of the 33,000 deaths about 21,000 were linked to suicide (). This changes the statistics of deaths not linked to suicide, to about 24% of the total incidents involved with guns. This statistic is one of the many arguments that could be made. This doesn’t change the fact that America has and will continue have this problem until it is solved.

One of the main arguments made by guns-rights activists is that people have the ability to protect themselves better than the police can. For example, American author, Dave Koppel wrote that if someone breaks into. “your home, you cannot afford to wait 30 minutes, 20 minutes, or even 10 minutes for the police to arrive” (2013, p 2). When there is an emergency, like that of a home invasion, victims are unable to wait that long for the cops to arrive. People must be able to protect themselves. Most cases, gun owners have "successfully used guns to defend themselves” (2013, p 2). If someone is in danger, they can protect themselves right then and there, instead of having to wait for the police. This argument is countered by the fact that about 3 million home invasions occur each year and “estimates show that 500,000...defensive gun uses occur each year” (Pinnelli). This invalidates the current argument. So, if people do not use guns to protect themselves most of the time then what is the point of having guns? This is the point of most gun protestors, in fact in Japan, who have some of the most strictest gun laws in the world along with the lowest amount of killings involving guns, have “ 0.6 guns per 100 people in 2007, according to the Small Arms Survey, compared to 6.2 in England and Wales and 88.8 in the US” (2017). This is what Harry Low, a journalist at BBC analyzed. This not only supports the fact that gun restriction works, but it also helps the community. In Japan, citizens are allowed to privately own guns, but “If you want to buy a gun in Japan you need patience and determination. You have to attend an all-day class, take a written exam and pass a shooting-range test with a mark of at least 95%. There are also mental health and drugs tests. Your criminal record is checked and police look for links to extremist groups” (Low 2017). In Japan, one would not have to worry about criminals obtaining guns due to how restricted they are, one wouldn’t have to worry about prying guns “ from the hands of law-abiding citizens" (Jones 2013). It will no longer cause trouble for the citizens as the availability of guns in Japan is equally as hard as finding food during a famine.. Problems for the police and citizens are diminished. For example, if guns would be made illegal it,

One of the main arguments against guns is that they are dangerous not just some people, but everyone. This is seen time and time again, a mentally disturbed person has access to a gun or guns and caused a mass shooting. This leads to another main argument, is that guns should not be readily available to everyone. Guns do not kill people, people do. This is why guns should be limited more, because if someone with mental health issues decides to buy a gun and decides to just start killing people, then another shooting has happened and could have been prevented if guns were just limited or banned.. If guns were taken from just the mentally ill there will be little not as much mass shootings. One argument to this is that it will not work because, “ Getting rid of guns does not get rid of violence” (Lunger 128, 2002).Yes, this is correct, getting rid of guns does not get rid violence, but it will certainly help. There will still be crimes and murders with or without guns. Guns are dangerous and this is why guns should be controlled or even banned.

"Criminals, by their very nature, have no respect for ...laws" (Dodrill, 2013). This is another reason why banning guns is just a waste of time because criminals will not follow laws, no matter what. “. Anyone who wants a gun badly enough would still be able to get one. Substantially reducing America's stockpile of guns might make it more difficult for a potential killer to get a firearm undetected” (Dalmia 2017). Guns being legal have been abused as they are used for crimes. Some other factors like alcohol and substances that are abused and ingested by gun owners have a huge impact on gun abuse also. Thus, irresponsible gun ownership causes a problem when mixed with other irresponsible acts.

Guns should not be banned as they can help citizens protect themselves, and if they were banned it would allow criminals to do whatever they want. In the end there are many outcomes that result out of banning guns. Some can be great yet some can be horrible. No matter what the government does about guns it will always be a problem involving them and people that are crossed in between a life of crime and a life in peace.

Reference list

Dalmia, Shikha. "We Can't Stop Mass Murder." The Week. October 06, 2017. Accessed October

27, 2017. http://theweek.com/articles/728581/cant-stop-mass-murder.

Dodrill, Tara. "San Francisco Gives Gunowners 90 Days To Turn In Magazines." Off The Grid

News. 2013. Accessed October 27, 2017. http://www.offthegridnews.com/self-defense/guns-ammo/san-francisco-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-magazines/

Kochanek, Kenneth D., Sherry L. Murphy, Jiaquan Xu, and Betzaida Tejada-Vera. "National Vital

Statisitcs Reports." National Vital Statistics Reports, Deaths: Final Deaths of 2014, 4th ser., 65 (June 30, 2016). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf.

DiMatteo, Enzo. "10 Reasons We Need a National Handgun Ban." NOW Magazine. September 17,

2008. Accessed October 27, 2017. https://nowtoronto.com/news/10-reasons-we-need-a-national-handgun-ban/.

Madison, James. "The Constitution of the United States." 1776.

Koppel, Dave. "Will You Be Safer If Guns Are Banned? Part 1." The Future of Freedom

Foundation. October 29, 2012. https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/safer-guns-banned-part-1/.

Lunger, Norman L. 2002. Big Bang: The Loud Debate over Gun Control. Brookfield, CT:

Twenty-First Century, 2002. Print.

Peer Partner: Sergio Servantes

Does the essay have at least 10 in-text citations used in the paper? example: (Paglia 2001, 555) yes

Were there a variety of in-text citations used in the paper? example: According to Parker ..... (2001, 556) etc. No

Were authors introduced properly? No

Were sources evaluated and compared? No

Did your partner create a discussion between the sources? No

Were there at least 5 CREDIBLE sources cited? Were they listed correctly? Not really

Was the introduction interesting? Was it effective? Was the thesis stated well? Intro was dragged on.

Did the essay make sense? Was it logical? No, poor formatting.

Was the essay written well? Was it interesting to read or was it boring? Boring, poor language.

What suggestions do you have to "kick it up a notch"?What are the strengths of your partner's arguments? Weaknesses? Better academic language.

Were you convinced by your partner's arguments? Did it make sense? Not really.

Was the essay written with a "voice" of a college? Not at all.

Was the Chicago 2 (author/date) formatting done well? No.

Were there the minimum required sources with the current year of publication? No 2017 sources.

Spelling errors? Several.

Grammatical errors? Several.

1qw

Guns, should they be banned or remain legal?

"We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid"(Koppel 1) Introduce the author. In the past few years since the Sandy Hook shooting ??? Evaluate and this is a reason WHY people say that guns should be banned. If guns would be banned it could bring down violence in the U.S. yet, others say that gun violence does not significantly lower the crime rate Average high school writing. Criminals will do whatever they want to do as it is part of their nature to disobey the law. Many people think that it is not gun ownership that is the problem; it is people killing each other. There is an argument that people do not need guns to protect themselves as it is the police's job to protect the citizens yet, it might take the police five to ten minutes in a large town such as Los Angeles to respond to a crime scene.Guns should not be banned, as they can help citizens protect themselves, and if they were to be banned it would allow criminals to do whatever they wish to do.

Guns should not be restricted because guns do not kill people, people kill each other update to academic language . For example, people who own guns, "...tend to kill more people...”(Gilson 2013) TLQ - High school. This is why the government should try to monitor who purchases a gun look to monitor those that purchase deadly weapons. If the government would restricts the people who would that purchase the guns, then the U.S. can become a better place. In addition, the more guns that are purchased, “gun death rates tend to be higher in states" (2013) who said this?. This is why the government should have enact a law that would restricts guns ownership. Also, if the government set stricter qualifications for gun purchases, then gun owners are more compelled to be more responsible and there would be less shooting. So, if the government puts tighter qualifications and screenings on the restrictions on gun purchases, then there could be changes. What is this whole paragraph about? What separates it from the following paragraph?

People can protect themselves better than the police can. For example, American author good idea to introduce the author, but do more, Dave Koppel wrote that if someone breaks into. “your home, you cannot afford to wait 30 minutes, 20 minutes, or even 10 minutes for the police to arrive” (Koppel 2). When there is an emergency, the police can’t be there in 1 minute especially if they live in a large town. Also, people can protect themselves and others in case of emergency. In addition, thousands of Americans have "successfully used guns to defend themselves” (Koppel 2). This is another reason why guns should not be banned as people can protect themselves. If someone is in danger, they can protect themselves right then and there, instead of having to wait for the police. So if people have guns, they can use them to protect themselves and this is one reason why guns should not be banned.

There should not be any ban on guns A ban on guns is unnecessary because if something is illegal, there will still be a way for that item or thing to be obtained. For example, if there was a ban on guns there would still be a way for guns to be obtained and, "It didn't work for alcohol, it certainly doesn't work for drugs” (Jones, 2013) introduce Jones. There have been two major prohibitions in American history, yet both of the items were obtained somehow evaluate. This is why the prohibition of guns is a waste of time time?. Jones continues on to say that if guns were outlawed it will remove them “... from the hands of law-abiding citizens" (2013). If they were removed from citizens, then it would allow criminals to do whatever they want to as the citizens would have nothing to protect themselves with. Also, it will cause more trouble for the citizens as they cannot fight back. In the end, banning guns will just allow criminals to commit more crimes easily as they are prone to do what they want.

Banning guns will cause problems for the police and citizens. For example, if guns would be made illegal it, “will primarily disarm peaceful citizens" (Koppel 2014). If this happens then it can give a green light for criminals to commit crimes. Also banning guns does not mean that they will get taken off the streets; drugs are currently banned yet, people still have a way to get them. In addition, banning guns will not prove effective because, "Criminals, by their very nature, have no respect for ...laws" (Dodrill, 2013). This is another reason why banning guns is just a waste of time because criminals will not follow laws, no matter what. It can also allow criminals to get away with nearly anything they want since the citizens have no way to protect themselves. In addition, anything that is legal but non trivial, ".has the capacity for abuse" (Phillips). Guns being legal have been abused as they are used for crimes. Some other factors like alcohol and substances that are abused and ingested by gun owners have a huge impact on gun abuse also. Thus, irresponsible gun ownership causes a problem when mixed with other irresponsible acts.

Restricting guns or its purchases will allow guns to be safely controlled and be monitored. For example, if they were to, "put restrictions on gun ownership, or require people to undergo background checks first” (Milligan 2014). If people have to have certain checks before allowing them to purchase guns, this will allow less crimes to happen as owners are made to be more accountable with its possession. This will also allow the government to track guns better. In addition, over “130,000 licensed gun owners who had previously registered failed or refused to register their guns” (Dimatteo 2015). This is also why gun stores need to have better system of gun ownership registration so the government can track guns easily. Also, buyers should register before leaving the store with the firearm. If the system of registration was better than it is now, the government will be able to track guns back to their owners.

Guns should be restricted or banned because they are dangerous for some people. For example, if a mentally insane person bought a gun and caused a mass shooting, then “The cause of mass shootings isn’t guns; it is mental health” (“Gun control: Five reasons why it won’t work” 2). If guns were taken from just the mentally ill there will be little to no mass shootings. Also the government needs to get rid of the source of what’s causing the problem, not what is being used to cause the problem. In addition, this will not work because, “ Getting rid of guns does not get rid of violence” (Lunger 128, 2002). There will still be crimes and murders with or without guns. Also, criminals will just find new ways to commit crimes. Guns are dangerous and this is why guns should be controlled or even banned.

Guns should not be banned as they can help citizens protect themselves, and if they were banned it would allow criminals to do whatever they want. In the end there are many outcomes

that result out of banning guns. Some can be great yet some can be horrible. No matter what the government does about guns it will always be a problem involving them and people that are crossed in between a life of crime and a life in peace.

Reference List (MLA form will change later):

change to Chicago 2

Dimatteo, Enzo. 2008 "10 Reasons We Need a National Handgun Ban." NOW Toronto Magazine. N.p., 17 Sep. 2008.. https://nowtoronto.com/news/10-reasons-we-need-a-national-handgun-ban/

Gilson, Dave "Disarming the Gun Lobby-with Facts." CeaseFirePA. Web. 9 Mar. 2015.

Smith, Keith. 2013 . "Gun Control: Five Reasons Why It Won’t Work." http://www.theclause.org/. N.p., 1 Feb. 2013. Web.

Koppel, Dave. 2013. "Will You Be Safer If Guns Are Banned?" WILL YOU BE SAFER IF GUNS ARE BANNED? N.p., n.d. Web.

Dodrill, Tara. 2013. "San Francisco Gives Gunowners 90 Days To Turn In Magazines." Off The Grid News. N.p., 7 Dec. 2015. Web. .

Lunger, Norman L. 2002. Big Bang: The Loud Debate over Gun Control. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century, 2002. Print.