Rogerian argument

have an outline provided by my Professor and i have a topic and my own sources. I have my first body paragraph done and i have what i was going to use for an opening, however, i cannot use it for an introduction, but it can be used at some point throughout the paper at some point. My essy type is ‘Rogerian Argument’. My chosen topic is ‘Gun Control’ My chosen arguement is ‘Does America need stronger Gun Control Laws’ 4h ·  C4 The rough draft of this paper was actually due last friday, December, 4th. However, I am mentally ‘stuck’ at this point and the final draft is due Tuesday, December 8th no later than 11:59 a.m. And this paper, in addition to a gramar quiz, is my final exam for this semester. 3h ·  C4 Let me know how to go about sending you what you will need to complete the paper. Hello, students: Most students have not written a paper like Essay #4 before, so it can be intimidating from that perspective. That’s why I created the Rogerian Argument video and included links and articles about logical fallacies to help you get caught up on these ideas. Make sure you have read them and watched them carefully–if you have not, it is not worth your time to write an outline. Also, you need to print out and study the prompt as well as the outline forms for Essay #4 located in the folder by the same name. Remember, you SHOULD continue on with the same topic you have been working on all semester if you wish; some students elect to do so if they can come up with a good argument-based question. Other students choose another topic entirely. That is up to you, but it makes a lot more sense to keep with the same topic as you should by now have a very thorough understanding of it, and to be frank, this is the shortest amount of time you have had in this class to write a paper. The good news is that this paper is highly, highly structured, and most students actually appreciate this paper more and find it easier than the first in some ways because the organization is laid out for you so clearly in the prompt: First paragraph: Introduction with thesis (mention the question that has led to debate) Second paragraph: first article summary Third: first article analysis Forth: second article summary Fifth: second article analysis Sixth: compromise between the two positions of the authors I highly encourage you to make sure your ideas you raise in your outline are on track with the nature of the assignment before beginning to write your draft. 3h ·  C4 What specifically does a Rogerian argument essay minimally need to have? Introduction: Identify point of debate (don’t include a question; restate into a statement) Identify authors and titles Short summary of each article Thesis: Name the authors Identify that they are wrong Either name the compromise you will reach OR Say a compromise will be reached Summarize both articles Topic sentences with transition EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE NEEDS TO emphasize whose idea it is (The author writes…she says…) Analysis paragraph needs: Topic sentence with transitions At least one fallacy per article (bold and underline in the paper itself) Provide evidence of the fallacy (DIRECT TEXTUAL EVIDENCE) After evidence, you analyze it: meaning EXPLAIN how this evidence is a fallacy Having a compromise paragraph as conclusion Can be strengthened by research to prove your point Other: Avoid all first person (I, me, we, us, our) or second person pronouns (you, yours) MLA formatting Overall tone: remember the point is to disprove both articles (don’t say the author has a “good point” etc.) Two articles both from databases Being consistent in the order of referencing the authors (Pro/con) Works cited page 3h ·  C4 Here is the sample paper that the same student wrote from the outline I sent you as a model of a Rogerian approach. Notice, please, that: the author uses topic sentences and transitions gracefully to connect the ideas between the body paragraphs–this is an important task, as each paragraph has a drastically different mission and purpose. I have underlined the topic sentences below so you can really tell how effective they are. the summary section clearly emphasizes in every single sentence that the ideas are the author’s (Murry says…. The author states….). the analysis paragraphs are very strong with a well-chosen fallacies (notice they are in bold and underlined, as well as defined). The fallacies have textual evidence, and after the text, she explains how exactly this piece of evidence weakens the author’s overall argument. there is also a conclusion that suggests a compromise between the two flawed arguments presented in the articles of her choice. Overall, this is a very strong paper, and it is my hope that you will use it to guide your own thinking and drafting this week. Educating America Historically speaking, a college education was a highly respected achievement and a privilege reserved for an elite few. Today, however, obtaining a higher education can feel like a requirement. Some even see attending college as a burden they must overcome; whether it is social, familial, or career-based pressures holding them to this standard. Many still debate if every American should go to college or if it should remain an individual decision. In the case of Charles Murray, his article “What’s wrong with Vocational School?” argues that too many Americans are pursuing a four-year degree despite their inadequate academic abilities. In contrast, Robert T. Perry’s article, “On ‘Real Education’” boasts a need for more college graduates as the job market begins to decline and an increased number of jobs require higher education. No matter which side of the argument is presented, neither provides the perfect solution. What the American educational system needs is additional protocol that will deter under-qualified students, while encouraging the pursuit of appropriate degree levels for others based on individual skills and abilities. In his article “What’s wrong with Vocational School?” Charles Murray argues that too many students are attending four-year colleges. According to Murray, the advanced skills learned at a four-year college exceed the intellectual capacity of the average student, making success a difficult achievement. He supports this argument by stating that an IQ of 115 is necessary in order for students to do well, which is only found in about 15% of the population. Nevertheless, despite this low percentage, Murray points out that 45% of high school graduates actually enroll in college. Even those who Murray considers to be intellectually qualified, he says, may decide to attend college but still lack true interest in obtaining a higher education. Murray’s secondary rationale stems from the idea that a college degree is often completely irrelevant. He cites the high demand of blue-collar workers and craftsmen as well as careers that are based on innate gifts and abilities rather than classroom achievements. His examples include “NBA basketball players or cabinetmakers” and he goes on to say, “Walk into Microsoft or Google with evidence that you are a brilliant hacker, and the job interviewer is not going to fret if you lack a college transcript” (633). Murray uses both a traditional trade and a more modern trade to prove that, regardless of technological advances, a college degree is not always necessary for career success. Although Murray provides a strong argument in regards to an abundance of students pursuing a college degree, not all of his logic is without flaw. In Murray’s primary argument regarding IQ, he utilizes deductive reasoning in an attempt to prove his point, but instead creates a fallacy by begging the question. Murray’s major premise states that students with an IQ lower than 115 have a low intellectual capacity and his minor premise is that students with a low intellectual capacity should not go to college. These premises lead to the conclusion that students with an IQ lower than 115 should not go to college, yet this logic is flawed because the major premise is debatable. A student’s intellectual capacity cannot be determined by a single assessment as it is much more complex and multi-faceted. The ability for a student to succeed in college is largely dependent upon their drive and determination to succeed. Academic skills can be cultured and developed over time if the student is willing, but an IQ test fails to consider these factors. Another occurrence of Murray’s flawed logic is through the presentation of a weak analogy. Murray states “it is safe to say that few people who are intellectually unqualified yearn for the experience, any more than someone who is athletically unqualified for a college varsity wants to have his shortcomings exposed at practice every day” (632). Murray attempts to use athletics as a comparison to academics but fails to acknowledge how vastly different these topics are. College courses are intentionally built with prerequisite qualifications and assessments that allow students to be placed accordingly based on academic skill. Their shortcomings are not “exposed” in a demeaning way and students are never placed in a position of ridicule. If a class is deemed too difficult, students have resources available to assist and even have the flexibility to make decisions regarding the subject matters in which their degree is focused. Unlike physical agility, cognitive learning is easily built upon in young adulthood and many students can succeed when provided the necessary tools and support to do so. On the opposite side of the argument, Robert T. Perry’s article “On ‘Real Education’” addresses the need for more college graduates in the United States. According to Perry, more jobs that were previously entry-level are now requiring a higher education, including preschool teachers, manufacturing jobs, and software engineers. He even suggests that there will soon be a shortage of teachers and accountants. Perry also mentions the vast number of unskilled jobs that are being outsourced overseas, leaving a need for the American economy to compete with other nations. Supported by his statement, “we rank tenth behind other nations in the percentage of young adults with postsecondary credentials”, Perry’s findings show that the U.S. is no longer a leader in educational achievement. He goes on to say, “The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems indicates that the U.S. will need to produce 63.1 million degrees to match leading nations Canada, Japan and South Korea in the percentage of adults with a college degree by 2025. At our current pace, we would fall short of that threshold by 16 million degrees” (626). Perry places much of the blame for these inadequacies on the difficulties met by students who require financial assistance. He believes there is a need to target students who come from low-income families and who are the first of their family to pursue a higher education. The majority of Perry’s argument is based on assumptions about what the future might hold, and much of his reasoning is illogical. Within the introductory paragraph, while refuting an argument made by Charles Murray, Perry states that “Removing some 80–90 percent of our students in my state or just about any state would interrupt the pipeline of skilled workers, making it nearly impossible to meet the needs of a society that has defined postsecondary credentials as an entry point for most professions” (625). With this statement, Perry creates an either/or fallacy by suggesting that colleges either continue letting everyone attend, or cut attendees by 80-90 percent. Perry jumps from one extreme to the other without any regard to other possible solutions. Perry’s flawed reasoning appears yet again when he later promotes a slippery slope fallacy. Perry states “Those left out of higher education would have fewer employment options than they do today” (626). Perry is suggesting that the outsourcing of jobs overseas will result in fewer job opportunities in the U.S., which will inevitably make it difficult for those without a degree or certificate to obtain employment. While the outsourcing of specific jobs may lessen jobs of that type in the U.S., other low-skill, entry-level jobs still exist and are unable to be outsourced, proving that the conclusion Perry suggests is not inevitable. There are a limited number of jobs that can be done by a foreign replacement, leaving plenty of employment options for Americans. While Charles Murray believes too many people are attending college and Robert Perry finds that America needs more college graduates, the real solution falls on middle ground. Adopting a policy that provides additional testing qualifications and placement evaluations for college applicants would provide the insight students need to make educated decisions regarding their future. Unlike Murray’s suggestion, which solely utilizes IQ scores, providing unique assessments that measure a student’s abilities outside of their IQ, would prove helpful in determining their ability to succeed. As illustrated by Eric Hoover in his article titled “The 4-Letter Word everyone is Talking About”, many high school counselors and college admissions officers are beginning to realize the importance of, what they call, a student’s “grit”. Hoover quotes Ms. Duckworth, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, as stating, “An IQ problem–that’s not what makes schoolwork hard. Effort is hard, confusion is hard, boredom is hard. And ‘hard’ is not the same thing as ‘can’t’”. This suggestion differs from the attitude of Perry, who believes nearly everyone should attend college. As an alternative, these assessments would assist students in determining whether they might be better suited for a certificate or licensing program as opposed to a full four-year degree. Eliminating the pressure and anxiety that surrounds pursuing a higher education and properly equipping our young adults to make educated decisions is the answer to America’s college dilemma. Works Cited Hoover, Eric. “The 4-Letter Word Everyone Is Talking About.” Chronicle Of Higher Education 59.8 (2012): A3. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Oct. 2013. Kirszner, Laurie G. and Stephen Manell, eds. Practical Argument: A Text and Anthology. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011. Print. Murray, Charles. “What’s wrong with Vocational School?” Kirszner 631-34. Perry, Robert T. “On ‘Real Education’” Kirszner 625-27. 3h ·  C4 This week I would like to call your attention to the topic sentences in a Rogerian argument paper. I want to encourage you, as a way to revise your work, to cut and paste your topic sentences for each body paragraph onto a separate document and print that paper out. You are welcome to email these sentences to check, too. Look carefully at your topic sentences and ask yourself: Do my topic sentences clearly convey the purpose of that paragraph? For the two summary paragraphs, the topic sentences should state the author’s name and his or her main idea in that first sentence. This first sentence, and indeed, the entire paragraph should be neutral in tone—you are in this paragraph merely restating without commentary what the article is about. For analysis paragraphs, the topic sentences should again state the author’s name and state that there are problems in argumentation in that paragraph (because that is the purpose of that paragraph—to demonstrate the flaws in the author’s argumentations, without using first person pronouns.). Do the topic sentences fit together? The danger in this assignment is writing it as though each paragraph were a separate essay. There should be connection between every single body paragraph, as each body paragraph has a very important, interconnected role. Using transitional words and phrases is tantamount to success in this paper. The connections to you, as the writer, between each paragraph are clear—you are responding to a very structured prompt. How can you demonstrate to a reader who does not have the prompt as a guide how the essay all fits together to prove your point? Content Thesis A. Strong, original, and arguable thesis statement B. Clear, arguable thesis statement C. Clearly-defined but simplistic arguable thesis statement (eg. 3-point thesis) D. Obvious, unclear, or confused thesis statement. Not arguable F. No thesis Topic Sentences A. Strong topic sentences in all body paragraphs B. Clear topic sentences in all body paragraphs C. Adequate topic sentences in most paragraphs D. Few or unclear topic sentences F. No topic sentences Support A. Textual evidence and examples are always integrated into the essay correctly and support the thesis B. Textual evidence and examples are integrated into the essay correctly and support the thesis C. Textual evidence and examples are sometimes appropriate and integrated into the essay correctly and support the thesis D. Textual evidence and examples are is are seldom integrated into the essay correctly and/or do not support the thesis F. Lacks textual evidence and / or examples Signal phrases A. Textual evidence has strong signal phrases, including author name, credential, source, and title B. Textual evidence has signal phrases prior to quotations, including author name, credential, source, or title C. Most of the textual evidence have signal phrases prior to quotations, although some criteria (author name, credential, source, and title) may be missing D. Most of the textual evidence used are missing thorough signal phrases F. No signal phrases used before quotations (or no textual evidence provided) Complexity A. Thoughtfully, critically, and logically addresses the essay prompt and a complex and sophisticated treatment of the topic; well developed B. Clearly and logically addresses the essay prompt and topic with some degree of depth; mostly well developed C. Adequately addresses the essay prompt and meets the essay requirements although contains undeveloped sections D. Attempts to address the essay prompt, but may be incomplete and/or demonstrate lack of understanding of the prompt or undeveloped F. Essay doesn’t address the prompt or is incomplete Logic A. A strong sense of logic (avoidance of fallacies, effective use of arguments, including other counter-arguments, other viewpoints, or concessions) B. Good sense of logic (avoidance of fallacies, effective use of arguments, including other counter-arguments, other viewpoints, or concessions) C. Some discrepancies in logic (avoidance of fallacies, effective use of arguments, including other counter-arguments, other viewpoints, or concessions) D. Major discrepancies in logic (avoidance of fallacies, effective use of arguments, including other counter-arguments, other viewpoints, or concessions) F. Frequent and major discrepancies in logic (avoidance of fallacies, effective use of arguments, including other counter-arguments, other viewpoints, or concessions) Organization Essay Structure A. Strong essay structure with academic introduction, body paragraphs, conclusion, and transitions B. Good essay structure, with a clear, academic introduction, body paragraphs, conclusion, and transitions C. Adequate academic introduction, body paragraphs, conclusion, and transitions D. Weak or simplistic essay organization (e.g. 5-paragraph essay) F. No sense of organization Paragraph Structure A. Strong paragraph structure with no repetition within paragraphs or essay B. Good paragraph structure with no repetition within paragraphs or essay C. Adequate paragraph structure with little repetition within paragraphs or essay D. Weakly organized paragraph structure with repetition within paragraphs or essay F. No sense of internal organization with repetition within paragraphs or essay Conventions Sentence Control A. Sophisticated, varied sentence structure with complete and complex sentences B. Complex and varied sentence structure with few complete sentence errors C. Attempts made at times to vary sentence structure and has complete sentence errors D. Simplistic sentence structure and many complete sentence errors F. Lack of control over sentence structure Academic Language A. Sophisticated, precise language with appropriate level of formality (3rd person) and audience awareness B. Accurate, precise language with appropriate level of formality (3rd person) and audience awareness C. Some language errors that do not hinder understanding, with adequate level of formality (3rd person errors) and audience awareness D. Significant language errors that may hinder meaning; lack of audience awareness; first and second person used F. Numerous and significant language errors that obscure meaning; lack of audience awareness; first and second person used Surface Errors A. Few if any surface errors (spelling, mechanics, punctuation) that do not interfere with understanding B. Few surface errors that do not hinder understanding C. Some surface errors that do not hinder understanding; questionable proofreading D. Significant surface errors that may hinder meaning; no evidence of proofreading F. Major problems with surface errors that obscure meaning; no evidence of proofreading MLA Format A. MLA formatting followed correctly for source titles and citations, Works Cited, and paper format B. MLA formatting followed correctly or nearly correctly for source titles and citations, Works Cited, and paper format C. MLA formatting followed adequately for source titles and citations, Works Cited, and paper format D. MLA formatting followed inadequately for source titles and citations, Works Cited, and paper format F. No MLA formatting Plagiarism Elements of plagiarism Introduction: ______Identify point of debate (don’t include a question; restate into a statement) ______Identify authors and titles ______Short summary of each article ______Thesis: with the Name the authors; Identify that they are wrong; Either name the compromise you will reach OR Say a compromise will be reached Summarize both articles ______Topic sentences with transition ______EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE NEEDS TO emphasize whose idea it is (The author writes…she says…) Analysis both articles ______Analysis paragraph needs Topic sentence with transitions ______Analysis paragraph needs at least one fallacy per article (bold and underline in the paper itself) ______Analysis paragraph needs evidence of the fallacy (DIRECT TEXTUAL EVIDENCE) ______Analysis paragraph needs after evidence, you analyze it: meaning EXPLAIN how this evidence is a fallacy Conclusion ______ Needs to advocate for a compromise paragraph as conclusion ______ Can be strengthened by research to prove your point Other ______ Avoid all first person (I, me, we, us, our) or second person pronouns (you, yours) ______MLA formatting followed correctly throughout ______Overall tone: remember the point is to disprove both articles (don’t say the author has a “good point” etc.) ______Using two academic articles both from databases ______Being consistent in the order of referencing the authors (Pro/con) ______Works cited page formatted correctly ______Using the same topic throughout the semester ______Running grammar and spelling check ______Submitting draft to Smarthinking Tutoring It needs to be a minimum of $ pages, not including works cited. I can do the works cited page if need be and as for sources, it is mandatory that we(the students) have to use the data base within our college website for all of our papers. I have my own sources. Can i send the link sources to you through the messaging system? Or do you have a web address? 4 pages. Sorry about that 1h ·  C4 Gun Control Laws: Should the United States Adopt Stronger Gun Control Laws? Introduction SUPPORTERS ARGUE The widespread availability of firearms has made it easier for criminals and people with mental illness to perpetrate mass shootings. The government can reduce shooting deaths by imposing common sense restrictions on guns that do not violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Arming more people will not reduce gun violence. OPPONENTS ARGUE The vast majority of gun owners in the United States are law-abiding citizens who buy guns for sport or protection. Curtailing the right to bear arms violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Strictly regulating gun ownership will only benefit criminals by disarming those who could otherwise defend themselves and save others. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was adopted on December 15, 1791. It states, “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.” The right of individuals to bear arms, however, has been fiercely debated, especially over the last century. While opponents typically cite gun control measures as infringements on the right to bear arms, supporters maintain that the Second Amendment does not limit the government from regulating the proliferation of firearms in the United States, or from preventing potentially dangerous and unstable people from obtaining powerful weapons. Indeed, the Second Amendment has long been the subject of dueling interpretations. The so-called individual rights theory maintains that the founders intended the Second Amendment to protect the gun rights of individual Americans. Advocates of this theory therefore argue that any law that would curb access to guns violates the Second Amendment. Others, however, have pointed to the phrase “a well regulated Militia” and argued that the founders actually intended the Second Amendment to only prevent the federal government from violating states’ abilities to defend themselves. Subscribers to this so-called collective rights theory of the Second Amendment contend that gun control measures—such as requiring individuals to undergo mandatory background checks before purchasing guns and banning the sale of assault weapons—are therefore constitutional. Calls for stricter gun control measures typically grow louder following high-profile shootings, such as the attack at Virginia Polytechnic and State University (known as Virginia Tech) in 2007, which killed 32 people; the shooting at a political gathering in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011, in which Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D, Arizona) was badly wounded and six people were killed; and the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, when 26 people were shot and killed, including 20 children aged six and seven. Many expected the tragedy to prompt the passage of new national gun control laws, but none were enacted. In October 2017, a gunman in a room on the 32nd floor of a hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, opened fire on a large crowd attending an outdoor music festival, killing 58 people and injuring more than 800, in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. Four months later, in February 2018, a former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, killed 17 students and teachers in a mass shooting. The attack—which President Donald Trump (R) called “an act of pure evil”—prompted a renewed national focus on the issue of guns in schools. On March 24, more than 1 million people joined protests, known as “March for Our Lives,” in Washington, D.C., and cities around the country, to demand greater gun control measures. 1h ·  C4 The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which compiles national crime statistics, tracks the number of so-called active shooter incidents that occur in the United States each year. A modern high of 30 such incidents was reached in 2017, marking a noticeable uptick from previous years, the agency reported, followed by 27 in 2018. The FBI defines an active shooter incident as one involving “one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.” The label “mass shooting,” however, is reserved for those shootings where three or more victims are killed by gunfire. The FBI identified 10 mass shootings in 2018, including the Parkland attack. In August 2019, two mass shootings that took place within 24 hours of each other in El Paso, Texas, where 23 people were killed at a Walmart store in an attack that targeted Hispanic shoppers, and Dayton, Ohio, where a shooter fatally gunned down 10 people in an entertainment district, again reignited the controversy over what measures, if any, might stem the tide of gun violence in the United States. They also reinvigorated a debate over the role hateful ideologies and mental illness may play in precipitating acts of violence. While some states have passed additional gun control measures in the wake of these various incidents, others have enacted laws that expanded gun rights, and Congress has not yet adopted any new, national limits on gun ownership. Should the government more strictly regulate access to guns? Supporters of gun control argue that current laws are too lax, allowing dangerous people to acquire deadly weapons with little or no hindrance. Indeed, they contend, stricter gun laws would thwart at least some of the tragic shootings that have become disturbingly routine in the United States. Allowing more people to carry powerful firearms, they insist, does not help prevent mass shooting deaths. Opponents of gun control argue that restricting access to guns violates the Second Amendment, which protects the individual right to bear arms. Gun control activists, they contend, seize upon violent episodes to scare people and promote their own political agendas. Taking away law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves, they insist, will not reduce gun violence but will empower criminals. Early Gun Control Laws One of the first pieces of gun control legislation in the United States was the Sullivan Act, passed in New York State in 1911. The law required individuals to obtain a permit to carry or own a firearm small enough to be concealed, a rule that still remains in effect in New York. The Sullivan Act was passed after the high-profile shooting of novelist David Graham Phillips in what the New York Times described as “a brazen early afternoon attack.” The shooting spurred public support for some manner of gun control, and supporters found a champion in Timothy Sullivan, a corrupt politician and member of Tammany Hall, the Democratic political organization that controlled much of New York City at the time. Some historians have argued that Sullivan supported gun control because he and other politicians had close ties to violent street gangs and wanted to be able to have members of rival gangs arrested for carrying firearms. Congress passed the first national gun control laws in the 1930s after a spate of crimes involving the use of fully automatic weapons—guns that fire continuously as long as the trigger is held down. The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 imposed a tax on the manufacture and sale of certain weapons, including machine guns, shotguns, and some rifles. The law, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), was “designed to make it difficult to obtain types of firearms perceived to be especially lethal or to be the chosen weapons of ‘gangsters,’ most notably machine guns and short-barreled long guns.” Still in effect, the NFA “taxes all aspects of the manufacture and distribution of such weapons,” the CRS states, “and compels the disclosure…of the production and distribution system from manufacturer to buyer.” In 1938, Congress passed the Federal Firearms Act, which focused on the sale of guns across state lines or across national borders. The law required firearms dealers to obtain a Federal Firearms License and to keep records of every weapons sale. The Federal Firearms Act also prohibited the sale of weapons to people who had been convicted of a crime. In the 1960s, a series of political assassinations led to more changes in U.S. gun policy. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy (D, 1961–63) was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald using a rifle he had purchased through the mail. Five years later, in 1968, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. and New York senator Robert F. Kennedy (brother of President Kennedy and former U.S. attorney general) were both shot and killed, galvanizing the movement to limit gun ownership. That year, President Lyndon Johnson (D, 1963–69) signed the Gun Control Act into law. The measure required gun manufacturers to place serial numbers on firearms, prohibited the importation of guns that were not intended for sporting purposes, and required gun dealers to obtain federal licenses and keep more detailed records of gun sales. The law also forbade gun sales across state lines except by licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers, and prohibited rifles and shotguns from being sold via the U.S. mail. Prior to the act’s passage, people seeking to buy guns through the mail only had to sign a statement declaring they were over the age of 21. In the mid-1970s, the National Rifle Association (NRA) became a major force in opposing gun control measures. Founded in 1871 to promote rifle ranges as a means for members of the U.S. armed forces to improve their marksmanship, the NRA had gradually evolved into an organization dedicated to promoting gun ownership and opposing gun control. In 1975, the NRA created the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), a lobbying group that sought to increase the NRA’s influence in government policy making. The ILA celebrated its first victory later that year when it mustered enough support in Congress to defeat an effort supported by Senator Edward Kennedy (D, Massachusetts)—brother of John and Robert Kennedy—to give the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) power to regulate guns and ammunition for the purpose of protecting consumers against defective merchandise. The ILA had argued that the move was a backdoor attempt at gun control, and in 1976 Congress passed legislation specifically denying the CPSC authority to regulate firearms and ammunition. On March 30, 1981, President Ronald Reagan was shot by a mentally ill man as he was leaving a hotel in Washington, D.C. Reagan, who was hit in the chest, survived without permanent injuries, but White House press secretary James Brady was shot in the head and left disabled. The attack prompted another wave of anti-gun protests, and Brady’s wife, Sarah, became a vocal proponent of stricter gun legislation. In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act into law. Often known as the Brady Bill, the law required local law enforcement to carry out a thorough background check on anyone attempting to buy a gun and imposed a mandatory five-day waiting period on the purchase of a firearm until the government could launch a national computerized database which sellers could use to conduct instant background checks on gun buyers. In 1994, Congress passed another gun control measure, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. This comprehensive law included the Assault Weapons Ban, which, for the next 10 years, prohibited the manufacture and sale, for civilian use, of semiautomatic weapons with magazines (the cartridges in weapons that hold the ammunition) capable of holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition and other features that increased their lethality, such as a pistol grip, collapsible stocks, or flash suppressor. These new gun control measures prompted legal challenges. In 1997, in the case Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the provision in the Brady Bill requiring local law enforcement to conduct background checks was unconstitutional. Enlisting local law enforcement for federal purposes, the Court ruled, violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which bans the federal government from exerting certain powers over states that the Constitution does not specifically delegate. Despite this ruling, many state and local law enforcement agencies continued to carry out the background checks. In 1998, in accordance with the Brady Bill, the federal government launched the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which required gun dealers to review a database run by the FBI before selling guns to customers. The database included information on people with criminal records, outstanding arrest warrants, and histories of mental illness. Gun dealers selling weapons on the secondary market, however, were not required to check with the NICS database, a lapse known as the “gun show loophole.” With the launch of the NICS, the five-day waiting period expired. The following year, two students at Columbine High School in Colorado opened fire in their school, killing 12 students and 1 teacher before taking their own lives. After the Columbine police received criticism for not entering the school quickly enough, many law enforcement agencies changed their tactics to promote engaging immediately with an active shooter, rather than waiting for backup. The Columbine shootings led to calls for more gun control by some, while others emphasized the possible role of violent video games and music lyrics in motivating the two students. In 2004, meanwhile, the Assault Weapons Ban expired, and Congress did not renew it. In 2007, a student at Virginia Tech used two guns to kill 32 people and wound several others in two attacks two hours apart on the college campus in Blacksburg. The student, who had a documented history of mental and emotional health problems, had nonetheless been able to purchase the guns because the state of Virginia had failed to share his history with the NICS database. In response, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act (NIAA) of 2007, which attempted to close this loophole. “The NIAA,” a fact sheet on the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics website states, “seeks to address the gap in information available to NICS about such prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments and other prohibiting backgrounds. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in District of Columbia v. Heller that a 32-year ban on handguns passed by the city of Washington, D.C., violated the Second Amendment. “We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many…who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion. “The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns…. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” The Second Amendment, Scalia wrote, applies to the individual right to bear arms, not just state “militias.” New Gun Control Steps Proposed in Recent Years In January 2011, a gunman in Tucson, Arizona, fired into a crowd during an event with Representative Gabrielle Giffords, killing six people and severely wounding Giffords. The manufacturing and importation of the weapon used in the shooting—a handgun capable of firing 33 rounds without reloading—would have been illegal under the Assault Weapons Ban that had expired in 2004, and gun control advocates called for the ban’s renewal. Lawmakers also proposed new measures to limit access to firearms and ammunition, including a bill introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D, New York)—a long-time gun control advocate whose husband had been killed by a mentally disturbed gunman on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993—that would have outlawed high-capacity magazines. Other proposals included closing the so-called gun show loophole by requiring background checks to be performed for such sales and allowing the U.S. attorney general to prevent individuals on the FBI’s Terrorist Watchlist from purchasing weapons. From 2004 to 2010, according to the Government Accountability Office, people on the Terrorist Watchlist—a massive database that reportedly contains the names of more than a million individuals the government considers potential threats—bought weapons or explosives 1,119 times. None of these measures, however, were successful in overcoming Republican opposition in Congress. The murder of 26 people, including 20 young children, by gunman Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012 prompted further calls for new gun control measures. Lanza used a semiautomatic rifle in the attack, law enforcement officials stated, and committed suicide with a handgun as police arrived at the scene. Lanza’s guns had been purchased legally and registered by his mother, whom Lanza shot and killed before carrying out the attack at the school. Five days after the Newtown shooting, President Barack Obama (D, 2009–17) assembled a White House task force led by Vice President Joseph Biden (D) to make policy recommendations on stemming gun violence. The panel, the Washington Post reported, considered such measures as mandating universal background checks for gun buyers, creating a national database to track the sale and movement of weapons, toughening mental health checks for gun buyers, and banning assault weapons and high-capacity gun magazines. Calls for gun control reemerged in October 2015, after nine people, ranging in age from 18 to 67, were killed in a classroom in Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. “Somehow this has become routine,” President Obama said in a statement from the White House soon after the shooting. “The reporting is routine. My response here at this podium ends up being routine, the conversation in the aftermath of it.… We have become numb to this.… What is also routine is that somebody, somewhere will comment and say ‘Obama politicized this issue.’ Well this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.” Observers have also noted that there are many incidents of gun violence that do not garner widespread media coverage. “[B]eneath the steady drumbeat of these high-profile cases lie the hundreds of daily mass shootings that most of us never hear about,” Washington Post reporter Christopher Ingraham wrote in October 2015. “Eleven wounded in a Georgia barroom. Six shot outside a Tulsa nightclub. A pregnant mom and grandmother killed, an infant wounded in Chicago. We’ve gone no more than eight days without one of these incidents this year. On six days in September, there were three mass shootings or more.” 1h ·  C4 In December 2015, married couple Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik opened fire at a holiday party in San Bernardino, California, killing 14 people and injuring 22 before being killed themselves in a shootout with police. The morning of the attack, Malik left posts on social media pledging her loyalty to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a terrorist group. Enrique Marquez, a friend and neighbor of the couple, had reportedly bought them the assault rifles used in the attack, and pled guilty to conspiring to commit crimes of terrorism. Marquez’s purchase of the weapons was legal, the Los Angeles Times reported, though transferring them to Farook and Malik may not have been. Gun rights advocates pointed out that the mass shooting occurred even though the buyer had complied with California’s relatively strong background check laws. Gun control proponents, however, argued that if stronger bans on high-capacity weapons had been adopted the death toll at the shooting might have been lower. Frustrated by congressional inaction, President Obama announced a series of executive actions on gun control on January 6, 2016. Among other measures, he imposed stricter limits on who could sell firearms without a federal license and required many gun enthusiasts who buy and sell weapons on the Internet, or at flea markets and gun shows, to register those transactions with the government, making them subject to background checks. The rule aimed to narrow the gun-show loophole by clarifying that anyone who sells guns for a living would be subject to federal prosecution for failure to comply. While announcing the initiative at the White House, the president teared up as he spoke of the first graders who had been killed at Sandy Hook. Though Obama’s executive actions sparked criticism from gun rights activists, observers noted that the changes were fairly limited and could be overturned by a future administration. [See President Obama Announces Executive Action on Gun Control (primary source)] On June 12, 2016, a gunman opened fire at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, killing 49 people. The FBI had questioned the shooter in 2013 and 2014 about potential ties to terrorism, but ultimately had removed his name from its Terrorist Watchlist. “Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history,” President Obama said after the attack. “The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or a nightclub. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.” The Orlando shooting renewed attempts to spur congressional action on gun control. On June 22, Representative John Lewis (D, Georgia) led a group of Democratic legislators in a sit-in at the U.S. House of Representatives. The Democrats sat down in the middle of the House floor, interrupting business unrelated to gun control, in an effort to force a debate on the issue. The Democrats remained seated on the House floor for about 13 hours. While supporters of gun control applauded the sit-in as a bold attempt to spur action on a crucial issue, opponents derided the move as a political stunt that broke legislative rules and sought to hijack the government. “Even by the hyperpartisan standards of Congress,” New York Times journalists David Herszenhorn and Emmarie Huetteman wrote, “it was a brazen disruption that underscored the outrage many lawmakers have expressed about the failure of Congress to act on gun legislation in the aftermath of numerous mass shootings.” The Democrats promoted two bills, one imposing stronger background checks on gun buyers, and the other prohibiting anyone on the FBI’s Terrorist Watchlist from buying a gun. Republican leaders opposed both measures. Senator Susan Collins (R, Maine) introduced an alternative measure that would have prevented anyone on the government’s much-smaller no-fly list from buying a gun, but this proposal also failed to gain enough votes. In December 2016, President Obama issued another executive order on gun control, requiring the Social Security Administration to submit records of mentally ill recipients to be included in the NICS database. The rule was estimated to affect about 75,000 people, who would have an opportunity to appeal to remove their names from the database. Many states, meanwhile, have addressed gun control policies in their own ways. State laws vary drastically regarding how easy it is to purchase, possess, and use guns. In 2013, for example, New York enacted some of the strongest gun restrictions in the nation in the wake of the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. Among other provisions, the legislation broadened background checks, banned magazines containing more than seven rounds, increased penalties for gun control violations, and expanded the definition of assault weapons—which were already illegal in the state—to include more kinds of guns. Other states have passed laws intended to broaden gun rights. States with so-called concealed carry laws, for example, allow gun owners to apply for a license to possess concealed firearms in public, while some require no permit to do so. Other states allow certain types of guns to be carried openly. Some also have so-called stand-your-ground laws that allow or encourage armed citizens to use their guns if being attacked. While supporters of such laws claim that they allow people to protect themselves, critics contend that they ultimately lead only to increased violence and accidental shootings. Mass Shootings Continue During the Presidency of Donald Trump During the 2016 presidential election campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump won the endorsement of the NRA by presenting himself as an ardent advocate of Second Amendment rights. During a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, in August 2016, for example, Trump accused Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton of wanting to “abolish” the Second Amendment, saying that if “she gets to pick her judges, [there is] nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.” Some interpreted the statement as a threat or as an incitement to violently protest against gun control, though the Trump campaign dismissed it as an offhand comment. [See Republican Presidential Nominee Donald Trump Issues Statement on Gun Control (primary source)] On November 8, 2016, Trump was elected president and Republicans maintained control of Congress, making the consideration of gun control reform measures within the next two years unlikely. In February 2017, President Trump signed a bill reversing Obama’s order that Social Security records be used to tighten background checks. Gun violence again made major headlines in June 2017, when a shooter attacked Republican members of Congress at a baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C., as they took part in an early-morning practice ahead of the annual congressional baseball game. Four people were injured in the gunfire, including Representative Steve Scalise (R, Louisiana), who suffered a serious wound to his pelvis, before the shooter was killed by law enforcement. Evidence emerged afterward that the gunman had expressed anger at President Trump and apparently targeted the Republican team for political reasons. Despite having had several run-ins with police in his Illinois hometown over the years, including facing assault charges, he had legally acquired the guns he carried. The shooting led to renewed calls for gun control by some, while others highlighted the risk that the increasingly heated rhetoric in national politics was becoming an incitement to violence. On October 1, 2017, a 64-year-old retired accountant fired down from his room on the 32nd floor of a Las Vegas hotel on crowds attending an outdoor country music concert. The shooter killed at least 58 people and wounded more than 800 before killing himself. Police found 47 guns in his hotel room and at his home in Mesquite, Nevada. According to authorities, he had attached accessories known as “bump stocks,” which can modify semiautomatic weapons to fire like automatic weapons, to two firearms. Nevada, which has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country, allows residents to purchase firearms without state permits and to own semiautomatic weapons and automatic weapons made before 1986. Nevada law does not require gun owners to be licensed or register their guns, nor does it limit the number of firearms a person can purchase at once. Two gun stores that confirmed having sold firearms to the gunman, who had no serious criminal record, said he had passed background checks. When asked whether the shooting might prompt additional gun control laws on the federal level, President Trump remarked that “we will be talking about gun laws as time goes by.” Some senior Republicans, however, indicated that they were open to considering a ban on the bump stock accessory used in the massacre. “I own a lot of guns, and as a hunter and sportsman, I think that’s our right as Americans, but I don’t understand the use of this bump stock,” Senator John Cornyn (R, Texas) told the New York Times. “It seems like it’s an obvious area we ought to explore and see if it’s something Congress needs to act on.” In December 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would review whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had the authority to unilaterally ban the device without legislation from Congress. The Justice Department issued a new regulation in December 2018 that classified weapons modified with a bump stock as illegal machine guns under the National Firearms Act. Bump stock owners were required to turn in or destroy the devices by March 2019. Despite voicing some support for a bump stock ban, however, Republicans also continued to back legislation designed to expand gun rights. The same month the Justice Department began its review on bump stocks, the House of Representatives passed the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which would require states to honor concealed carry permits granted by other states. If a person who had obtained a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Nevada traveled to California, for example, California would have to allow that person to carry the firearm, regardless of its own gun restrictions. The law, which the NRA supported, was unlikely to be passed in the U.S. Senate, but its success in the House revealed the gulf between legislators ardently calling for more gun control and those who believed that gun owners should have more rights. A shooting at a church in a small town outside San Antonio, Texas, in November 2017, rekindled discussion over the relative ease with which potential attackers can purchase guns. The assailant interrupted a Sunday morning service at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, where he was a member, methodically killing 25 worshipers with his semiautomatic rifle. Another man there, who was also armed, confronted the shooter and fired his weapon, injuring him. The shooter then fled the scene in a vehicle before dying of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. After the incident, the U.S. Air Force, where the shooter had served from 2009 to 2014, disclosed that it had failed to log a court-martial conviction he had received in the NICS database that would have prevented him from purchasing the gun used in the massacre. This high-profile mistake prompted Congress to pass the Fix NICS Act in March 2018, requiring states and federal agencies to boost their reporting to the database and imposing penalties for noncompliance. In February 2018, alleged gunman Nikolas Cruz entered Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and embarked on a shooting rampage, killing 17 students and teachers. The 19-year-old Cruz, who had been expelled from the school several years earlier, used a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle, which he had purchased legally, in the shooting. An armed sheriff’s deputy assigned to the school was present during the shooting, but surveillance footage showed that he remained outside the building for several minutes, rather than entering and engaging the shooter in accordance with police protocol. The deputy later resigned from the police force. In the days after the tragedy, students who had survived the shooting called on lawmakers in Florida—which had some of the most permissive gun-ownership laws in the country—and Congress to pass gun control legislation. On February 21, President Trump met with the parents of students killed in the massacre, along with survivors of the Parkland killings and other school shootings. “We, as a country, failed our children,” Andrew Pollack, whose daughter, Meadow, was killed in Parkland, told Trump. “[S]ome animal can walk into a school and shoot our children. It’s just not right, and we need to come together as a country and work on what’s important, and that’s protecting our children in the schools.” President Trump noted during the meeting that he would embrace some tougher regulations on gun ownership, including stricter background checks. “[B]ackground checks are going to be very strong,” he said. “We need that.” He also suggested arming some teachers in schools. “[T]his would only be, obviously, for people that are very adept at handling a gun,” he said. “They’d go for special training. And they would be there, and you would no longer have a gun-free zone…. If you had a teacher…who was adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly.” Students from Parkland called on Congress to pass stricter gun control laws and challenged legislators, including Senator Marco Rubio (R, Florida), to reject donations from the NRA. In early March, Florida governor Rick Scott (R) signed into law a measure that raised the minimum age required to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21, imposed a three-day waiting period for purchasing a firearm, and made it easier for law enforcement officers to confiscate weapons from people who were subject to involuntary psychiatric evaluation. The measure marked an unlikely shift for Florida, a historically pro–gun rights state. A particularly controversial provision of the law allowed school superintendents and sheriffs to authorize school personnel to carry firearms on school grounds. Florida legislators had rejected other proposed measures, including instituting an assault weapons ban and strengthening background checks. On March 14, 2018, thousands of students and teachers across the United States participated in a 17-minute school walkout to honor the 17 people killed in Parkland. Ten days later, on March 24, hundreds of thousands of people gathered in Washington, D.C., to demonstrate in favor of stronger national gun control measures, with similar protests occurring in cities and towns around the country. Student survivors of the Parkland shooting helped organize the demonstrations. “To all the politicians out there, if you take money from the N.R.A., you have chosen death,” Alex Wind, a 17-year-old Parkland survivor, said at the event. “If you have not expressed to your constituents a public stance on this issue, you have chosen death. If you do not stand with us by saying we need to pass common sense gun legislation, you have chosen death. And none of the millions of people marching in this country today will stop until they see those against us out of office, because we choose life.” Counter-demonstrators accused the students of encouraging policies that trampled on Second Amendment rights. “Many other Americans do not support a gun ban,” Senator Rubio said in a statement. “They too want to prevent mass shootings, but view banning guns as an infringement on the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens that ultimately will not prevent these tragedies.” In March 2018, Congress adopted the Students, Teachers, and Officers Preventing School Violence Act as part of a federal spending bill passed that month. The provision, also known as the STOP School Violence Act, authorized the Justice Department to distribute grants to school districts, municipalities, and police departments to improve school safety. The new program was funded, however, by redirecting money from another federal initiative designed to finance research on school safety. In October, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the department was awarding more than $70 million under the new program, spread across more than 200 grant recipients, in addition to grants under an existing plan to help states modernize their criminal-record databases. More mass shootings occurred later in the year. Among the most deadly were ones at Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, Texas, in May 2018, which killed 10 people; at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in October 2018, which killed 11; and at a bar in Thousand Oaks, California, in November 2018, which killed 13. In January 2019, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a pro–gun rights group, reported that gun sales in the United States had decreased more than 16 percent from 2016 to 2018. Despite this recent drop, the group noted, gun purchases had doubled in volume over the preceding decade, a period that largely coincided with President Obama’s two terms in office. Analysts attributed the more recent sales slump to President Trump’s election, claiming that it had removed a perception among gun owners that their Second Amendment rights were under threat. Still, there remained more guns in civilian hands in the United States than people, the Small Arms Survey, a research organization based in Geneva, Switzerland, found, with Americans owning an estimated 393 million firearms as of 2017. The U.S. population at the time was around 326 million. In the midterm elections in November 2018, Democrats made large gains across the country, winning numerous local offices and a majority in the House of Representatives. These victories emboldened many of them to take more aggressive action on gun control. In April 2019, New York attorney general Letitia James opened an investigation into the NRA that appeared to threaten the future viability of the country’s largest pro-gun lobbying organization, even as the NRA’s voice in the gun debate remained strong. The inquiry, which focused on the NRA’s eligibility for tax-exempt status, originated in the wake of reports in various news outlets highlighting the group’s questionable financial dealings. It came as the NRA faced other challenges, including a new New York State policy invalidating a liability insurance program for gun owners promoted by the group, and ongoing internal turmoil as NRA president Oliver North and several board members resigned in the midst of the financial scrutiny and internecine disputes. On July 28, 2019, a teenaged gunman opened fire at a food festival in Gilroy, California, killing three people. The gunman, who was wearing protective body armor, had bought a semiautomatic rifle in neighboring Nevada—a purchase not legal in California—and was later found to have made racist posts on social media sites prior to the attack. After he was killed by police officers, additional weapons and ammunition were discovered with him. Only a week later, on August 3, two mass shootings occurred within hours of each other in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, leaving 33 people dead, including the Dayton shooter, and sparking renewed debate over gun control. In the first attack, a lone gunman traveled nearly 600 miles from his hometown in eastern Texas to a Walmart in El Paso specifically to target Mexicans, who frequent the big-box store for its convenient location near the U.S.-Mexico border. Shortly beforehand, the gunman appeared to have posted a racist manifesto on 8chan, an online message board, using white-supremacist language to discuss immigration. The manifesto decried an “Hispanic invasion of Texas” and expressed support for previous mass shootings motivated by racial hatred. Hours afterward, in Ohio, another young man opened fire. While lacking an apparent ideological motivation, the gunman wore body armor and a face mask and armed himself with a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a hundred-round magazine, before embarking on a shooting spree in a nightlife district in Dayton. He killed nine people, including his sister, in less than a minute, before law enforcement fatally wounded him. In an address from the White House on August 5, two days after the shootings, President Trump denounced the attackers and expressed sympathy for the victims. “My fellow Americans, this morning, our nation is overcome with shock, horror, and sorrow,” he declared. “This weekend more than 80 people were killed or wounded in two evil attacks.” He added: We are a loving nation, and our children are entitled to grow up in a just, peaceful, and loving society. Together, we lock arms to shoulder the grief, we ask God in Heaven to ease the anguish of those who suffer, and we vow to act with urgent resolve. While President Trump did condemn white nationalism, he sought to distance himself from the apparent racist motivations of the El Paso shooter and focused instead on mental illness, labeling both gunmen “twisted” and “disturbed.” He pointed out his administration’s enforcement of existing gun laws as evidence of his commitment to reduce mass shootings, touting the “record number of firearms offenses” pursued by federal prosecutors in 2018. President Trump also expressed support for increased background checks and other ways to prevent shootings, including so-called red flag laws that allow a judge to temporarily order the confiscation of firearms from individuals who may pose a threat to themselves or others. Such laws have been adopted in 17 states, with most passed since the Parkland shooting in 2018. “I am directing the Department of Justice to work in partnership with local, state, and federal agencies, as well as social media companies, to develop tools that can detect mass shooters before they strike,” Trump said. “As an example, the monster in the Parkland high school in Florida had many red flags against him, and yet nobody took decisive action…. Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun.” [See President Trump Responds to Mass Shootings in Texas and Ohio (primary source)] President Trump’s response to the attacks drew mixed reactions as advocates on both sides debated the role of guns, mental health, and extremist ideology in the recent violence, with some pointing to Trump’s past remarks as helping to legitimize racist sentiments. “[Trump] doesn’t just tolerate [white supremacist rhetoric]. He encourages it, calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, warning of an invasion at our border, [and] seeking to ban all people of one religion,” Beto O’Rourke, a Democratic presidential candidate and former congressman from El Paso, Texas, said in an interview on CNN on August 4, 2019. “Folks are responding to this. It doesn’t just offend us. It encourages the kind of violence that we’re seeing, including in my hometown of El Paso yesterday.” Some Democrats in Congress, meanwhile, called for Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R, Kentucky) to bring the Senate back early from its August recess to take up gun control measures, including a universal background check bill that the House of Representatives had adopted in February 2019. “[T]he new Democratic House Majority promptly did its duty and passed the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, which is supported by more than 90 percent of the American people and proven to save lives,” Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D, New York) and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D, California) said in a joint statement, on August 5, 2019. “It is incumbent upon the Senate to come back into session to pass this legislation immediately.” While Senator McConnell rejected the demand, others called for stronger legislation. Democratic presidential candidate and former vice president Joseph Biden, for example, urged reinstatement of the bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, asserting that research showed they reduced gun violence. “Assault weapons—military-style firearms designed to fire rapidly—are a threat to our national security, and we should treat them as such. Anyone who pretends there’s nothing we can do is lying,” Biden wrote in an op-ed in the New York Times in August 2019. “The Republicans who allowed these laws to expire asserted that they were ineffective. But, almost 15 years after the bans expired, with the unfortunate benefit of hindsight, we now know that they did make a difference.” Additional measures under consideration included another bill passed by the House in 2019 that would increase the amount of time the FBI has to complete background checks from 3 days to 10, thereby closing the so-called Charleston loophole that had allowed Dylann Roof to buy a gun in 2015 after the 3-day period had expired. Members of Congress also introduced legislation that would enhance regulation of assault weapons without a complete ban, fund the implementation of red flag laws at the state-level, and increase federal resources devoted to investigating domestic terrorism and hate crimes. Supporters Argue: Congress Should Pass New Gun Control Measures Supporters of gun control laws argue that such measures are necessary to curb mass shootings and decrease gun violence. Lawmakers have waited far too long to act on gun control, advocates argue, and the “thoughts and prayers” routinely offered up by Republican legislators after mass shootings are insufficient. “[W]hat we need most of all isn’t mourning, but action to lower the toll of guns in America,” New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote in October 2017. “The gun lobby will say that this isn’t a time for politics. But if we can’t learn the lesson from this carnage, then there will be more such shootings—again and again. This is a particularly American tragedy and completely unnecessary.” Gun control measures, proponents contend, do not violate the Second Amendment. Sonja West, an associate professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, wrote in Slate in December 2015: Protecting the right to keep and bear arms is not the same as forbidding all regulations on that right. We can protect that right and still require background checks, permits, and training. We can still regulate when, where, and what kinds of guns are allowed. In some cases, we can regulate who can obtain guns, imposing restrictions on, for instance, felons, the mentally ill, and known terrorists.… There might be policy reasons to debate the pros and cons of specific regulations, but there’s no reason to assume that there is a constitutional problem. The prevalence of guns in society, gun control advocates assert, correlates directly with homicide rates, and civilians in the United States possess far more firearms than civilians in other developed countries. Numerous studies conducted by researchers at Harvard University’s School of Public Health, Vox journalist German Lopez noted in October 2015, demonstrated a relationship between the number of guns and the level of gun violence in a community. “The truth is that there is something Americans can do about gun violence,” Lopez wrote. “The empirical research shows that reducing the number of guns—by reducing access to them, or by immediately cutting the supply of them through, for example, buyback programs—would lead to fewer deaths.” Supporters of gun control reject the notion that problems other than gun use—such as mental illness—are primarily responsible for the frequency of mass shootings in the United States. “We are not the only country on Earth that has people with mental illnesses or want to do harm to other people,” President Obama said at a press conference in October 2015. “We are the only advanced country on Earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months.” The frequency of mass shootings, proponents of new gun regulations insist, can only be blamed on the lack of gun control measures. “The simple fact is that the laws of this beloved country allowed for the deranged gunman to purchase a gun legally,” Lorenzo Prado, a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who survived the shooting there, said in February 2018. Lawmakers who obstruct the passage of gun control measures, advocates charge, bear direct responsibility for the deaths of victims of mass shootings. “Republican legislators across the country refuse to consider common sense measures to prevent the horrific gun violence that kills our loved ones each and every day. By refusing to act, they are aiding and abetting domestic terrorism,” Andy Parker, whose daughter Alison Parker was shot and killed during a live news broadcast in August 2015, wrote in the New York Daily News two months later. “Shame on them for being the cowards that they are. Is the support of a fringe element of the NRA so important that they are willing to accept our children as collateral damage?” The National Rifle Association wields excessive influence in American politics, supporters of gun control argue, and must, in the name of safety, be curbed. “[U]ntil we tame the power of the NRA, we can expect more killings like this,” Peter Dreier, a professor of politics at Occidental College, wrote in Salon following the mass shooting in Roseburg, Oregon, in October 2015. Such killings, he added, are “a part of the deadly daily diet of murders throughout America committed by angry gun-toting people whose ‘freedom’ to own weapons of mass destruction…the NRA defends.” Pro-gun lobbyists are wrong, proponents of gun control assert, to claim that the solution to gun violence is introducing more firearms into the population. The presence of more guns during the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, they contend, would have done nothing to stop the murder of 58 concert-goers. “Rough math indicates that the shooter was about a football field’s length away from his victims when he opened fire,” reporter Alex Yablon wrote in the Trace in October 2017. “[E]ven had revelers been allowed to bring their guns, they would have been useless to slow the rounds spraying the audience from above.” Others have opposed the idea of arming teachers in order to prevent school shootings. “With more ‘good guys with guns’ in our nation’s schools, there would instead be an increased chance for accidents, more opportunities for a perpetrator to take and use that weapon, and confusion for first responders with the vital and harrowing task of discerning the ‘good guys’ from the ‘bad,'” former high school teacher Valerie Braman wrote for NBC News in February 2018. “[D]eciding in a split second whether or not to discharge a deadly weapon at a young person I called one of ‘my kids’ is not one of the duties I signed up for.” Opponents Argue: Congress Should Not Pass New Gun Control Measures Opponents of gun control laws argue that such measures will not curb mass shootings or decrease gun violence. Gun violence, they contend, is the fault of individual perpetrators, not the weapons themselves. “We cannot blame gun owners, the gun itself, or the liberties protected in the Second Amendment for how evil people abuse that freedom,” Erich Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, a gun rights group, maintained in a statement issued following the Las Vegas shooting in October 2017. “The vast majority of gun owners handle their firearms responsibly. Guns are used up to 100 times more often to save a life than take life. Even so-called ‘assault weapons’ are used in self-defense.” Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R) echoed this point the same month. “Gun violence is a problem in this country,” he conceded, “but it’s not the fault of the Second Amendment, it’s the fault of evil people doing evil things.” Gun control opponents often cite the Second Amendment as an essential bulwark protecting the liberty of every citizen. As conservative commentator Charles Cooke argued in the Washington Post in December 2015: At the time of the American founding, it was widely understood that there was a real danger in a government’s attempting to deprive the people of what Alexander Hamilton called their “original right of self-defense.” This is why, when it came to writing the Constitution, the anti-Federalists, who feared the government’s potential to become corrupt, refused to sign on to a more powerful national government until they had been promised certain explicit protections. Then, as now, their logic was clear: It makes no sense to allow the representatives of a free people to disarm their masters. Burdening gun owners and gun sellers with more regulations, such as more intensive background checks, opponents argue, would do nothing to stop mass shootings like the one in Parkland, Florida, in February 2018. An editorial in the National Review argued: What kind of gun control might have prevented the Florida killing? For all the talk of “moderate” and “common-sense” reforms, plausible regulatory approaches to preventing such acts of mass violence are few and far between. The Florida shooter had no criminal record and had not been judged mentally incompetent, and so he was able to purchase rifles and other long guns legally, passing a background check in the process. Given the fact that the local police and the FBI both failed to look seriously into him after receiving credible warnings of his murderous intent, it is difficult to imagine that a clerk at a sporting-goods store is going to be much more effective staging an intervention at the point of sale. If guns were illegal, critics of gun control contend, only those willing to break the law would be able to wield the power of a firearm. “You can strip all the guns away,” Ohio governor John Kasich (R) told NBC news in October 2015, “but the people who are going to commit crimes or have problems are always going to have the guns.” Rather than stripping Americans of the right to defend themselves, opponents assert, the government should adopt policies making it easier for law-abiding Americans to arm themselves and stop would-be mass shooters. “Gun owners even more than ever need to be able to protect themselves,” Donald Trump, then running for president, said during an appearance on CNN following the July 2016 shooting in Orlando, Florida. “And by the way, if you had some guns in that club, the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had.” In particular, critics argue, arming teachers could help stop the next school shooter. “We have security, armed security, in virtually every public entity in this country except schools…and everybody who wants to shoot up a school knows that they are going to be the only one armed,” conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh told Fox News February 2018. “The solution is we need concealed carry in these schools. If we are really serious about protecting the kids…we better have mechanisms in these schools to stop it when it breaks out.” There are typically underlying causes of mass shootings, opponents contend, that have little to do with the ease of obtaining guns. “We have a serious societal problem,” Senator Marco Rubio (R, Florida) remarked during an appearance on conservative commentator Mike Gallagher’s radio show in October 2015. “[W]hether it’s mental illness…whether it’s family break down and the lack of values being taught at a young age, or a combination of all these things—we do have serious problems in America…. But we’re focusing too much on what it is people are using to commit violence, and not enough on why it is that people are committing violence.” Broadening gun ownership in the United States, gun control critics insist, has actually decreased violent crime. “Forty states have Right-to-Carry [laws that allow people to carry concealed firearms], and 48 states prohibit cities from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law,” an article published by the NRA and its Institute for Legislative Action noted in 2010. “And, since 1991, the total violent crime rate has declined over 40% to a 35-year low, and the murder rate has declined by half to a 45-year low.” Democrats have used mass shootings as an excuse to expand the government’s power and reach, opponents charge, and have exaggerated the dangers of guns to push their own agenda and limit Americans’ freedom to bear arms. “There is no ’emergency powers’ doctrine that authorizes the government to restrict Second Amendment rights,” National Review editor Andrew McCarthy wrote in July 2016. “Such a doctrine would advance the Democrats’ statist objective: an omnipotent government…run by Democrats. In the short term, however, it would undermine our natural right to defend ourselves when government cannot.” Controversy over Gun Control Likely to Continue The debate over gun control and the Second Amendment will likely not subside soon, as incidents of mass shootings often reignite passions on both sides. While a single solution seems unlikely, some see room for compromise. “Gun-control supporters demonize firearms and Second Amendment supporters, blaming the National Rifle Association for mass murder. Conservatives see their critics as caring little about the Constitution and knowing next to nothing about firearms,” radio host John Carlson wrote in the Wall Street Journal in February 2018. “But people of good faith can find common ground and help reduce gun violence in the U.S.” Whether or not legislation passes in the near future, controversy over gun control has become a mainstay of American politics. “Gun Control Laws: Should the United States Adopt Stronger Gun Control Laws?” Issues & Controversies, Infobase, 27 Apr. 2020, icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=2263. 1h ·  let me know once you send all the required info so I could start creating order page for you 🙂 1h C4 I apologize for the multiple messages, just want to make sure you have my source info because it is mandatory that only specific data bases can be used. The messages sent were the makeup of the 1st source. Because there is no author, of course opening sentences, etc. have to begin with the author states, in this article it states, etc. And my far left( opposing side) i have referred to as Democrats or Democratic Party. My far right side (supporting side or group) i have referred to as Republicans or Republican Party I can send you my 1st body paragraph if you like. I do have that much done 1h ·  C4 I will send the other resource now 39m ·  sure, send it as well, I am waiting for you to give me all the info you have to start placing your order 🙂 36m C4 Gun Control Reform: Does the United States need gun control reform? (title) Introduction SUPPORTERS ARGUE The high rate of violent shootings in the United States can be traced to the country’s lax stance on gun legislation. If bans on high-capacity weapons had been in place, the Tucson shooter would not have had access to a 33-round handgun, and a great deal of bloodshed could have been prevented. In addition, the system by which people can obtain guns is defective, allowing emotionally disturbed people easy access to deadly weapons. It is highly unlikely that armed bystanders could have prevented a crisis such as the one in Tucson, and, in fact, they might have done more harm than good. OPPONENTS ARGUE The right to own and carry weapons is granted by the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court, and that right has already been curtailed enough. Incidents such as the one in Arizona are rare, and the majority of U.S. gun owners do not represent a threat to society. In addition, many of the states that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that do not. From the day the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted on December 15, 1791, granting U.S. citizens the right to carry firearms, the issue of gun control has been the subject of intense debate. The Second Amendment states, “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.” The amendment was adopted for a number of reasons, ranging from wanting to give U.S. residents the right to provide for their families by hunting with firearms, to ensuring their right to defend their homes against invaders. The right to bear arms, however, has been fiercely debated over the course of U.S. history, as particularly violent episodes have prompted calls by some segments of the population for stricter gun control. Those calls grew louder in the days following January 8, 2011, when Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D, Arizona) and 19 other people were shot at a political gathering in Tucson, Arizona. Six people, including nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green, were killed at the scene, while Giffords, who was shot in the head, was critically injured. The alleged shooter, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, had apparently targeted Giffords, as evidenced by papers seized at his home that referred to a plan to assassinate her. Following the shooting in Tucson, there have been renewed calls for stricter regulation of gun ownership in the U.S. and a revamping of existing gun laws. Indeed, a variety of legislation tightening restrictions on guns has been introduced in the aftermath of the shooting. There have also been calls to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, which had been in place from 1994 until its expiration in 2004. Should gun control be regulated more strictly by the government? Are the relaxed gun policies of certain states to blame for the ease with which troubled people can gain access to firearms? Could stricter gun laws really prevent mass killings, or would those inclined to commit murder find a way to do so regardless? Supporters of reforming gun control policies say that the current laws are too lax, allowing dangerous people to acquire deadly weapons with little or no hindrance. Past gun control laws have been allowed to expire, they note, thereby increasing the threat of gun violence. To those who suggest that allowing more people to carry concealed weapons would make U.S. residents safer, gun control supporters point out that not even those who were brought firearms to Giffords’s appearance that January day were able to stop a determined gunman from murdering and wounding so many people. Critics of reforming gun control insist that the Second Amendment irrefutably protects their right to bear arms, citing the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld that right, as a prime example. In addition, critics note that reforming gun control laws would do nothing to stop mentally ill or disturbed people from committing violent acts and, in fact, could hinder citizens’ abilities to defend themselves against such people. They point to lower crime rates in some states where residents are allowed to carry concealed weapons as proof that gun violence is caused by more than just the possession of a firearm. The History of U.S. Gun Ownership The first major piece of gun control legislation was the Sullivan Act, passed in New York in 1911. The law was named after its primary sponsor, Timothy Sullivan, a corrupt politician and member of Tammany Hall, the Democratic political organization that controlled much of New York City for close to 100 years. The Sullivan Act required a permit to carry or own a weapon small enough to be concealed, a rule that remains in effect in New York State. The first federal gun control laws were passed in the 1930s, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D, 1933–45) was implementing the New Deal, a series of economic programs designed to combat the Great Depression. The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 imposed a tax on the manufacture and sale of certain firearms, including machine guns, shotguns and some rifles. Following the National Firearms Act, the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 was passed. The law focused on the sale of firearms across state lines or overseas. Under the law, firearms dealers were required to obtain a Federal Firearms License and to keep records on everyone to whom they sold weapons. The Federal Firearms Act also prohibited the sale of weapons to people who had been convicted of a crime. In the 1960s, a series of political assassinations led to a change in U.S. gun policy. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy (D, 1961–63) was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, a disenfranchised ex-Marine who murdered the president with a rifle he purchased through the mail. Five years later, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. was fatally shot by James Earl Ray. Just two months after that, President Kennedy’s brother Senator Robert Kennedy (D, New York) was shot and killed by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian immigrant with anti-American leanings. In the wake of those assassinations, the anti-gun movement became galvanized. President Kennedy’s vice president and successor, Lyndon Johnson (D, 1963–69), was a staunch supporter of gun control and pushed to have the Gun Control Act signed into law in 1968. The act heavily regulated firearms in the U.S., placing more stringent restrictions on gun sales, and forced gun dealers to keep more detailed records. In addition, sales across state lines were forbidden, except by licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers, while rifles and shotguns were prohibited from being sold via the U.S. mail. Prior to the act’s passage, people interested in buying guns through the mail had only to sign a statement that they were over the age of 21. Title II of the Gun Control Act amended the NFA to add “destructive devices,” such as hand grenades, bombs and rocket launchers, and redefined “machine gun.” While some gun dealers found their operations stifled by the 1968 act, others managed to rise to prominence. One of those was George Jennings, a California-based businessman who started Raven Arms, a maker of small-caliber pistols, shortly after the Gun Control Act was passed. Raven Arms soon grew in size, ultimately becoming a multi-company empire that collectively became known by critics as the Ring of Fire. [See Small Weapons Maker Grows into Gun Empire (sidebar)] In 1975, the National Rifle Association (NRA), a group dedicated to promoting the rights of gun owners, created its Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), a lobbying group that sought to increase the NRA’s influence with the government. The year it was created, the ILA celebrated its first victory when it was able to muster enough support in Congress to defeat an effort by Senator Edward Kennedy (D, Massachusetts) to have handgun ammunition deemed a “hazardous substance” and summarily banned by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. On March 30, 1981, President Ronald Reagan (R, 1981–89) was shot by John Hinckley. Reagan survived the shooting, but White House Press Secretary James Brady was shot in the head and left permanently disabled. His injury set off another wave of anti-gun protests. The most vocal proponent of stricter gun legislation was Brady’s wife, Sarah. In 1987, she introduced to Congress the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, otherwise known as the Brady Bill. It was the first piece of legislation that would require federal background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a firearm in the U.S. [See The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (sidebar)] President Bill Clinton (D, 1993–2001) signed the Brady Bill into law on November 30, 1993. The law imposed a mandatory five-day waiting period on the purchase of a firearm and required local law enforcement to carry out a thorough background check on anyone attempting to buy a weapon. However, four years later, in the case Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that having local law enforcement conduct federally mandated background checks was unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment, which says that each state retains its sovereignty, and powers not granted to the federal government must remain with that state. In 1994, shortly after the passage of the Brady Bill, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was signed into law by President Clinton. The country’s largest crime bill, it called for, among other provisions, the federal Assault Weapons Ban—a 10-year ban on the manufacture and sale, for civilian use, of semiautomatic weapons with magazines capable of holding 10 rounds or more of ammunition. Four years after the federal Assault Weapons Ban, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was activated, removing the need for law enforcement officials to conduct background checks and enabling firearms dealers to handle the checks themselves by simply contacting the database by phone or computer and entering the prospective buyer’s identifying information. In 2004, 10 years after becoming law, the Assault Weapons Ban expired under the presidency of George W. Bush (R, 2001–09). On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho, an English major at Virginia Polytechnic and State University (known as Virginia Tech) in Blacksburg, Virginia, fatally shot 32 people and wounded several others in two separate attacks on the school’s campus before killing himself. Cho had a history of mental and emotional problems and had been diagnosed with anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. In 2005, after stalking a female classmate, Cho had undergone a psychiatric evaluation by the New River Valley Community Services Board and was found to be a possible threat to himself and others. Therefore, under federal law, Cho should not have been able to purchase a firearm. However, the Virginia statute on firearms is worded differently, noting that people unfit to own guns must fall into one of two categories: someone who is “involuntarily committed,” or one deemed mentally “incapacitated.” Since Cho met neither condition, the gun dealer in Virginia did not notify state police upon receipt of Cho’s application. Following the massacre at Virginia Tech, Congress passed and President Bush signed legislation authorizing up to $1.3 billion in federal grants for dramatic improvements to states’ abilities to search and track individuals looking to purchase a gun. The law, however, applied only to sales at licensed gun stores, while sales at gun shows by unlicensed vendors did not require background checks. Regardless of that loophole, the law was considered successful. Between January 1, 2008, and August 31, 2010, the number of disqualifying mental illness records submitted to NICS had more than doubled—rising to 929,254, from 402,047. As of 2011, however, more than 1.6 million court-ordered mental evaluations that could conceivably bar gun purchases have not been entered into the NICS. New Gun Control Steps Proposed in Wake of Tucson Shooting The tragedy in Tucson has reignited the gun control debate. Observers say that, as a result of the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban, Jared Lee Loughner was legally able to carry a handgun capable of firing 33 rounds without reloading during his shooting spree. Several pieces of legislation intended to address the ease of obtaining firearms and ammunition have been proposed since the Tucson shooting. On January 18, 2011, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D, New York) unveiled a bill that would outlaw high-capacity magazines (the cartridges in weapons that hold the ammunition). Her proposal would also forbid gun owners from purchasing magazines made before the ban took effect, thus closing a loophole that existed in the previous bill. A week later, New Jersey Senators Frank Lautenberg (D) and Robert Menendez (D) introduced two pieces of gun control legislation—one, called the Gun Show Background Check Act, that would require gun show vendors to perform background checks on their customers, and another that would prevent individuals on terrorist watch lists from buying guns or explosives. (From 2004 to 2010, according to the Government Accountability Office, people on terrorist watch lists bought weapons or explosives 1,119 times.) Representative Peter King (R, New York) has called for legislation that would outlaw carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of a government official. That plan mirrors legislation that outlaws carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. Conservative lawmakers, meanwhile, have argued in favor of legislation widening gun ownership. For example, Representative Louis Gohmert (R, Texas) has stated that he is drafting a bill that will allow members of Congress to carry weapons in Washington, D.C., which is currently illegal. The Tucson shooting has also prompted scrutiny of Arizona’s history of gun violence. An article published in the Arizona Republic in late January 2011 reported that the state has the nation’s seventh-highest rate of gun deaths (including accidents and suicides) and the sixth-highest rate of gun-related murders. From 1999 to 2007, Arizona reported more than 3,000 slayings involving guns, an average of six murders per 100,000 residents. In total, including suicides, police shootings and accidental deaths, the number was closer to 16 per 100,000 residents, six more than the national average. Arizona’s gun laws are among the country’s most lenient, allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons almost anywhere in the state, including government buildings and inside the state capitol. “Essentially, there is very little obstacle to purchasing a weapon in the state of Arizona,” Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist James Grimaldi told National Public Radio (NPR). “There are laws that require you, federally, to be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun. But basically state law permits anyone 21 and older to own a firearm and also, to carry it concealed in the state. That’s different than many other states, many of which have stricter gun laws.” As a result of its lenient gun regulation, Arizona has received the poorest rating from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The group assigns points to states for every law or rule passed to regulate access to firearms. In 2009, out of a possible 100 points, Arizona earned just two. The issue of weapon sales at gun shows has also regained prominence recently. In January 2011, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg sent a team of undercover agents to a gun show in Phoenix, Arizona. The investigators, wielding hidden cameras, were able to purchase several high-capacity handguns from private vendors just by presenting identification. In one instance, an investigator told the seller that he probably could not pass a background check, a revelation that did not stop the sale from taking place. According to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, gun show sales such as that one account for 40% of the firearm purchases in the U.S. Supporters Argue: Gun Control Needs Reform Advocates of tighter gun control laws argue that Arizona’s lax regulation played a major role in the Tucson shooting. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who is currently in charge of that investigation, has said of the current state of gun laws in Arizona, “I have never been a proponent of letting everybody in this state carry weapons under any circumstances that they want, and that’s almost where we are.” Many supporters of toughening gun control laws point to the excessive firepower of some weapons bought by U.S. civilians, such as Loughner. If such weapons, with their high-capacity magazines, had been banned, gun control supporters contend, the Tucson massacre would not have taken place. McCarthy, whose recently proposed bill would reinstate the ban on the sale of magazines containing more than 10 rounds of ammunition, wrote in the letter accompanying the bill, “The only purpose for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible. There is no reason that these devices should be available to the general public.” Supporters of stricter gun legislation argue that gun advocates have become increasingly violent and dangerous. They point out that, at a pro-gun rally held in Washington, D.C., on April 19, 2010, many of the speakers in attendance made antigovernment remarks, calling for revolution and an uprising of the people in the name of their constitutional rights. “There is now a segment within the gun rights community that is hostile to all progressive interests and believes it has a right to use firearms to counter the results of our democratic process,” Josh Horowitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, writes for the Huffington Post. “We are likely to see more threats and violence if Conservative leaders do not stand up and state unequivocally that such conduct draws its inspiration from Timothy McVeigh, not Thomas Jefferson.” In addition, gun control reform advocates dismiss the notion of an armed populace being able to defend themselves or others. Timothy Egan, writing in the New York Times, points out that, during the shooting in Tucson, some of those present were, indeed, carrying weapons, and yet no one was able to prevent the massacre that ensued. In fact, Egan remarks, one of the men involved almost shot a bystander trying to disarm Loughner. “It defies logic, as this case shows once again, that an average citizen with a gun is going to disarm a crazed killer,” Egan wrote. “For one thing, these kinds of shootings happen far too suddenly for even the quickest marksman to get a draw. For another, your typical gun hobbyist lacks training in how to react in a violent scrum.” Reform supporters also lament the extreme latitude in U.S. gun laws, pointing to the strict regulations in other countries as examples the U.S. could follow. For example, in Great Britain, people convicted of a criminal offense cannot own a gun, and the laws do not consider self-defense a valid reason for ownership. “The killings in Tucson,” writes Michael Kryzanek in the Patriot Ledger of Quincy, Massachusetts, “should spark a greater commitment on the part of public officials to examine how other countries, other civilized countries, around the world pass sane and reasonable gun laws.” Other gun control advocates note that new legislation should be required to regulate the sale of weapons at gun shows. Bloomberg has said, “Congress should act now, but gun show operators shouldn’t wait. They can do the right thing today by making sure that every gun sale at their shows is subject to a background check.” Opponents Argue: Gun Control Reforms Threaten Second Amendment Rights Critics of reforming gun control argue that gun owners have a constitutional right to bear arms, as outlined by the Second Amendment. They point out that in 2008, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms and to use a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. The Court’s ruling led to the lifting of a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., that had existed for 32 years. In an interview with the Washington Post, lawyer Alan Gura noted that there had been “all sorts of predictions that there would be blood on the streets and carnage and all kinds of Wild West stuff if people in the District of Columbia were allowed to legally own guns. Obviously, that has not come to pass.” Critics argue that the government should not rush to implement more restrictive gun control measures in the wake of the Tucson shooting. Indeed, they say, many legislators are playing on people’s anxieties about the seemingly irrational act of gun violence committed by one disturbed person to push through new regulations. Representative Reid Ribble (R, Wisconsin) argues, “[T]here are those who, for political purposes, want to use fear…to restrict what we do…if they can cause us to do that, then in fact they’ve been successful.” The shooting in Tucson, gun control opponents say, is the fault of the shooter, not the laws that allowed him to arm himself. “What happened in Tucson was not a failure of gun-control laws,” observed Lawrence Keane, general counsel to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “This was a failure of the mental-health system.” Gun control critics insist that broadening gun ownership in the U.S. has actually decreased violent crime. A 2010 article published by the NRA and the ILA notes, “Forty states have Right-to-Carry, and 48 states prohibit cities from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law. And, since 1991, the total violent crime rate has declined over 40% to a 35-year low, and the murder rate has declined by half to a 45-year low.” Opponents of gun control also note that it is not realistic for the public to rely on law enforcement for its protection. Representative Ron Paul (R, Texas) has remarked about the shooting in Tucson, “Eyewitness reports indicate it took police as much as 20 minutes to arrive on the scene that day! Since police cannot be everywhere all of the time, a large part of our personal safety depends on our ability to defend ourselves.” Opponents of gun control reform also protest the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban, arguing that many semiautomatic weapons, such as the M1 Garand, once popular with the U.S. Army and Marines, are used recreationally. “These types of firearms, which are erroneously called assault weapons, are used by millions of Americans for hunting, sporting and personal defense purposes,” Steve Sanetti of the National Shooting Sports Foundation told the Los Angeles Times. Controversy over Gun Ownership Likely to Continue Regardless of New Regulation Even if new, stricter gun control laws are passed in the wake of the Tucson shooting, it is unlikely that the debate over the Second Amendment will subside anytime soon. Whether or not new legislation is passed, it is likely that the debate on gun control, one that is nearly as old as the U.S. itself, will continue for years to come. Giffords, meanwhile, has shown signs of a slow recovery. Shortly after the shooting, she was put into a medically induced coma. She has since regained consciousness, opening her eyes and moving her arms and legs. On February 9, she spoke for the first time since the shooting, and soon after that developed the ability to hold simple conversations with her husband. Some observers stress, meanwhile, that it was predictable that a substantial amount of legislation would be proposed after the shootings, but they caution lawmakers about passing any new gun control laws. Connecticut Representative John Larson (D) has said, “Anytime in the immediate aftermath of something, there’s usually not a silver bullet. The more you listen, the more you synthesize, perhaps you come up with some common sense ideas.” “Gun Control Reform: Does the United States need gun control reform?” Issues & Controversies, Infobase, 28 Feb. 2011, (2nd source) 28m ·  is that all or should I wait for more info? 27m C4 here is another source if you would like to use this one. This has the info i was gonna use as my basic argument. I want to argue that “taking guns away is not the right decision, because if guns are outlawed, the only people possessing and using them will be outlaws” and a better solution would be to maybe perform thorough phsycological evaluations and more intense background checks in regards to past firearm violations, etc. my apologies, again lol i will now send the other source Title of source is, Self-Defense Laws: Should states expand self-defense laws to legally protect the use of deadly force, even in public places? Pr Introduction SUPPORTERS ARGUE Eliminating the duty to retreat allows victims of an attack or threat to defend themselves from potential harm without having to worry about being charged with a crime. People should be able to respond forcefully to perceived threats regardless of where they are: in public, at their homes, at their place of business, or in their cars. OPPONENTS ARGUE The new laws encourage a “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality that could result in the widespread use of deadly force in situations where such force is not warranted. Laws enforcing a duty to retreat prevent many potentially fatal confrontations. Many of the new self-defense laws are poorly reasoned and ill-written, and could create confusing legal situations in the near future. The extent to which a person can legally defend himself or herself from an attacker has been a subject of great controversy throughout U.S. history. Legal scholars and lawmakers have long debated the most accurate way to differentiate assault from self-defense. For example, if a man is attacked by a mugger on a city street, should he be allowed to combat that attack with force, or should he first attempt to retreat? If retreat is impossible, how much force should he be permitted to use? What if he winds up killing his assailant? Is that an example of self-defense, in which the man is legally protected? Or could the man be charged with manslaughter, or even murder? Issues and Controversies: A flyer handed out at Miami’s International Airport by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in October 2005 informs visitors about Florida’s new law that makes it easier for people to use deadly force to protect themselves. A flyer handed out at Miami’s International Airport by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in October 2005 informs visitors about Florida’s new law that makes it easier for people to use deadly force to protect themselves. Carlo Allegri / Getty Images During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Supreme Court grappled with questions such as these. In a series of cases, it examined an attack victim’s “duty to retreat” as a primary option: Should a person have to attempt to retreat before forceful self-defense could be legally justified? Eventually, in a 1921 decision, the court ruled that there should be no duty to retreat; victims of attack almost always should be allowed to defend themselves. Many states, however, continued to enforce a duty to retreat, with some making an exception for those attacked while in their own homes. But starting in 2005, more than a dozen states began to pass expanded self-defense laws that loosened many of the restrictions regarding attack victims’ right to defend themselves. The new laws—which were heavily promoted by the gun rights group the National Rifle Association (NRA)—make it possible for residents of those states to use deadly force to combat any attack or threat, eliminating the duty to retreat, even in a public place. Those new laws have caused a stir among many gun control advocates, who argue that they will create a “Wild West” mentality in which people will settle disputes with gunfire and bloodshed. However, supporters of the new laws maintain that they provide vital legal protections for those who cause injury and even death in the name of self-defense. Are the new self-defense measures necessary to help would-be victims defend themselves? Or do they go too far in awarding extra legal protection to those who resort to the use of force in defending themselves? Proponents of armed self-defense say that the duty-to-retreat laws still in place in many states are too friendly to criminals and inadequately protect law-abiding Americans. Self-defense should be legal in all cases, in all environments and at all times, and the new laws ensure that right, they contend. Supporters further assert that the laws are based on common sense: If a criminal attacks a person, that person should be able to respond in kind without having to retreat first, proponents maintain. Opponents, however, say the new laws could instill in Americans a “shoot first, ask questions later” frame of mind when it comes to self-defense. Without the duty to retreat, public in- stances of violence will likely increase, and as long as that violence can be classified as self-defense, they will all be perfectly legal, critics maintain. Finally, critics say that there was no need to expand the self-defense laws so drastically, since the old ones worked just fine. Supreme Court Grapples with ‘Duty to Retreat’ The history of self-defense laws in the U.S. is tied to the continually evolving notion of a victim’s “duty to retreat.” The duty to retreat is a legal idea that is rooted in British common law, which the U.S.’s founding fathers used as a template in the design of their own legal code following their Declaration of Independence from Britain in 1776. In essence, it states that if a person is attacked or threatened, that person is not legally protected if he or she decides to fight back. Instead, that person must first attempt to retreat from the situation. If retreat is impossible, or if the person under attack is vulnerable to immediate, grievous bodily harm, then that person can fight back, but only at a level commensurate with the initial threat. Issues and Controversies: National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre contends that “stand your ground” laws empower crime victims by allowing them to use force to protect themselves. Alex Wong / Getty Images In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, several rulings by the Supreme Court attempted to define a victim’s duty to retreat. The 1895 case Beard v. U.S. centered on an Arkansas man identified only as Beard and his three nephews, who publicly boasted of their plan to steal a cow from Beard’s farm and kill Beard if necessary. One afternoon, the nephews were sneaking onto the farm to carry out their plan when Beard spotted them. He pointed a rifle at his nephews and ordered them to leave his property. Will Jones, the oldest of Beard’s nephews, began to draw a pistol from his pocket, but before he could withdraw it completely, Beard hit him on the head with his own gun, killing him. An Arkansas court convicted Beard of manslaughter and sentenced him to eight years in prison. The judge in that case maintained that Beard had a duty to retreat from the three nephews, even though they were trespassing on his property. Beard appealed, however, and eventually the Supreme Court heard the case. In a unanimous opinion overturning the eight-year sentence, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Beard’s right to defend his property without the duty to retreat. According to the court, Beard was “entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such way and with such force as…were necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.” The following year, the Supreme Court upheld the life imprisonment of a 14-year-old boy named Alexander Allen who had killed a fellow teenager during a dispute. Because the dispute occurred while they were on public property, a trial court ruled that Allen had a duty to retreat when confronted by the other teenager. In Allen v. U.S., the Supreme Court agreed with that ruling. The distinction between the Supreme Court’s Beard ruling and its Allen ruling is that the events of Beard took place on private property, nullifying the duty to retreat. In 1921, the Supreme Court in another major self-defense case, Brown v. U.S., overruled the notion that a victim has a duty to retreat if attacked in a public place. The case involved an altercation between two men—one identified as Brown, the other as Hermis—with a previous history of violence towards each other. During their final altercation, Hermis drew a knife and attacked Brown, who responded by firing four pistol shots at his assailant, killing him. The Supreme Court ruled that the shooting was in self-defense and therefore did not qualify as murder. Because Brown was threatened with grievous bodily harm—even though he was in a public place and not on his own property—he did not have a duty to retreat. Rather, the court ruled, Brown had the right to stand his ground and fight off his assailant. Indeed, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the 7-2 majority, called into question the entire idea of a duty to retreat. “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upturned knife,” Holmes wrote in what has become one of his most famous legal opinions. “Therefore,” he continued, “it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.” In other words, according to Holmes, victims of assault should be allowed to fight back, regardless of the situation. The ‘Castle Doctrine’ Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. U.S. would seem to have clearly defined the parameters of the “duty to retreat,” most states still define that duty in different ways. Some states continue to uphold the duty to retreat with laws that require victims of an attack to consider retreat as their primary mode of defense. In those states, it is permissible to fight back only against a potentially lethal attack if escape is not easily and safely possible. In at least 17 states, however, there are laws that make an exception to the duty to retreat if the attack occurs in the victim’s home. Such laws are commonly referred to as the “castle doctrine,” based on the common saying, “A man’s home is his castle.” If a state’s laws include a version of the castle doctrine, a person who is confronted by an intruder while inside his or her own dwelling can legally use deadly force in the name of self-defense. In certain states, that right is expanded to include a person’s vehicle and, in some cases, even his or her place of business. In July 2006, Michigan became the latest state to adopt a version of the castle doctrine, which will go into effect in October 2006. After that date, anyone whose home is broken into does not have a duty to retreat from the intruder. Homeowners are permitted to react by using deadly force if they reasonably believe that the intruder has an intention to cause harm to someone within the dwelling. In other words, the duty to retreat in such a scenario is eliminated. The law did not pass without controversy. Pro-gun control groups such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence publicly stated their opposition to the bill during each step of the legislative process. Indeed, the bill’s language was toned down considerably before it received approval in Michigan’s House and Senate. According to David Gorcyca of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, the bill as originally conceived was “too expansive.” He continues, “It was like, if someone is on your property, and you feel you needed to defend your property or person without a reasonable fear of apprehension, bodily harm or death, you could literally shoot first and ask questions later.” His organization opposed that version of the bill, but supported the version that was eventually signed into law by Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D). Expanded Self-Defense Laws in Florida and Elsewhere In April 2005, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) signed an expanded self-defense law which, according to observers, surpasses even the castle doctrine in scope. Alternately dubbed the “stand your ground” law by supporters and “shoot first” law by opponents, Florida’s new law gives unprecedented, broad legal protection to attack victims who use deadly force in the name of self-defense. The controversial law—which was passed overwhelmingly in the state’s House and unanimously in its Senate—eliminates the duty to retreat in all cases of an attack or threat, even if that attack or threat happens in a public place. Instead, a person threatened with attack in public “has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” Furthermore, people acting in self-defense are not liable if they accidentally injure or kill a bystander in the act of defending themselves. According to the law, if a person is physically attacked, prosecutors must presume that the person under attack feared for his or her life, therefore justifying any type of violence used in self-defense, including deadly force. The attacker need not be armed to be considered a threat; and the person acting in self-defense cannot be arrested, prosecuted or otherwise detained for his or her actions, and also cannot be charged in a civil suit. Finally, the new self-defense law in Florida expands the parameters of the castle doctrine itself. Floridians now have the right to use deadly force on anyone who unlawfully and forcefully intrudes into their homes or vehicles. Previously, self-defenders had to prove that they feared for their safety in such a situation before the use of force became justified as self-defense. Florida’s new law was heavily supported by the NRA, the U.S.’s largest gun rights nonprofit organization, and one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country. The NRA holds the official position that Americans have a right to bear arms as defined by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. It argues that Florida’s new self-defense law protects responsible gun owners who use their weapons responsibly, with the sole intent of protecting themselves and their families. The NRA’s Florida lobbyist, Marion Hammer, heavily promoted the expanded self-defense bill among Florida lawmakers, and was standing by Bush’s side when he signed the bill into law. Since the Florida law passed, the NRA has worked to promote similar legislation in many other states. According to the NRA’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, the organization has thus far largely targeted politically conservative states in its drive to spread the law across the country. “There’s a big tailwind we have, moving from state legislature to state legislature,” he said. “The south, the midwest, everything they call ‘flyover land’—if John Kerry held a shotgun in that state, we can pass this law in that state,” LaPierre continued, referring to the Democratic senator from Massachusetts who lost the 2004 presidential election to President Bush (R). Since Florida’s law took effect in October 2005, the NRA has facilitated the creation of similar self-defense laws in 13 other states, of which all but one (Michigan) voted for Bush in the 2004 presidential election. Additionally, a 14th state, Alaska, passed an expanded self-defense bill, which Gov. Frank Murkowski (R) is expected to sign into law before his term ends in November 2006. Additionally, the NRA says it has been promoting a version of the law in eight other states. Included among those states are Minnesota and Pennsylvania, which voted Democratic in the 2004 election, as well as Ohio, which was a “swing” state and the site of a particularly heated battle between Bush and Kerry in 2004, with Bush eventually winning by a slim margin. The law has been a source of controversy in most states in which it has been introduced, however. In Michigan, a group of demonstrators, arguing that the new self-defense law would increase gun violence, protested the law by wearing orange T-shirts that read “Innocent Bystander.” A Kentucky judge, reviewing the terms of the newly signed law, publicly stated that the law was confusing and ill-written. “I’m not quite sure that the drafters had even a marginal knowledge of criminal law or Kentucky law,” circuit judge Sheila Isaac said. And in Florida, where the self-defense law was initially passed, a rash of shooting deaths in 2006 has been partially blamed on the new law, and some who originally supported the law have said they are reconsidering their stance. [See 2006 Self-Defense Cases in Florida Since October 2005 (sidebar)] 17m ·  C4 By the Numbers: Self-Defense Laws The data below are from the Issues and Controversies article Self-Defense Laws (September 8, 2006) Self-Defense Laws States that have expanded self-defense laws loosening restrictions on attack victims’ rights to defendthemselves 16 States the National Rifle Association plans to lobby to pass expanded self-defense laws 8 Shootings that occurred in Florida in the first half of 2006 that fell under the jurisdiction of Florida’s expanded self-defense law 13 In the 13 Florida self-defense cases, deaths that occurred 6 In those Florida cases that have been reviewed,shooters that were charged with a crime 3 In the Florida cases, shooters who have had their right to self-defense upheld 5 Spreading the New Self-Defense Laws Across the U.S. Representatives from the NRA say they plan on lobbying at least eight states in 2007 to adopt an expanded version of the self-defense law, with the eventual goal of reaching all 50 states. Observers say that the goal is potentially attainable due to the NRA’s current status as perhaps the most powerful lobbying organization in the country. “With Republicans running Washington, cowed Democrats are afraid to utter the words gun control even in the privacy of their homes,” Cottle writes. Issues and Controversies: Bernhard Goetz Bernhard Goetz became the center of one of the most widely publicized self-defense cases in the 20th century when he shot four black youths who accosted him on a New York City subway train in 1984. Stan Honda / AFP / Getty Images Meanwhile, many of the expanded self-defense laws face legal challenges and popular opposition. Observers say that formal legal reviews of the laws are likely in several states. Meanwhile, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is actively opposing the laws through its Web site and in other media. In mid-2005, the Brady Campaign launched an advertising campaign warning tourists about the potential dangers of Florida’s expanded self-defense bill. “Thinking about a Florida vacation?” the advertisement reads. “A new law in the Sunshine State authorizes nervous or frightened residents to use deadly force.” Florida makes a lot of money from its tourism industry. Meanwhile, people on both sides of the debate have proffered different statistics to attempt to prove that the new law has either worked or failed. Supporters of the law note that Florida’s crime rate is at one of its lowest points in several decades. Opponents, meanwhile, say that Florida still has a high rate of violent crime, ranking among the top states in the U.S. in that category. Of course, according to some legal experts, the new self-defense laws in Florida and elsewhere might be largely symbolic, part of the ideological battle between the gun control and gun rights crowds. Indeed, in the southern states in which the new laws have made the greatest headway, legal experts assert that nothing has really changed. “In the south,” says Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology at Florida State University in Tallahassee, “they more or less gave the benefit of the doubt to the alleged victim’s account” even before the new laws passed. “It’s inconceivable to me that one in 100 Floridians could tell you how the law has changed.” Cited Source info “Self-Defense Laws: Should states expand self-defense laws to legally protect the use of deadly force, even in public places?” Issues & Controversies, Infobase, 8 Sept. 2006,After a week of silence following the shooting, NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre held a press conference on December 21 in which he argued that more guns, not fewer, were necessary to prevent gun violence. LaPierre urged placing armed guards at all schools, contending, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” LaPierre’s statement prompted widespread criticism from legislators and education officials, who insisted that increasing the presence of guns in schools would not solve the problem of school shootings. Despite polls showing that an overwhelming majority of Americans supported mandating universal background checks and other gun control measures, Congress did not enact any such proposals. On April 17, 2013, senators voted 54–46 against universal background checks, 54–46 against limits on the size of high-capacity ammunition magazines, and 60–40 against a ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons. Following the votes, President Obama blasted the powerful gun lobby, accusing it of “spreading untruths” about the background check expansion. “All in all,” he said, “this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.” A string of shootings in 2015 revived calls for gun control. In June, 21-year-old Dylann Roof shot and killed nine people in Charleston, South Carolina, while they were worshipping at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. While much of the coverage of the event focused on Roof’s motives in the shooting—Roof, a white man, stated that he had targeted African Americans in hopes of starting a race war—many noted that Roof had been able to buy a gun despite having an arrest record that should have precluded such a purchase. FBI officials blamed the mistake on a breakdown in communication between local and federal authorities in the background check system. A final, unrelated note of caution: ultimately, the purpose of this essay is to show how very flawed the two essays’ authors’ argumentations are; be careful in your word choice, therefore. Saying that the authors make a “great point” or have a “compelling argument” sets the bar so high for yourself that it would then be very hard to knock down their argument, which is of course your goal in this assignment.