Crystal Montzerrat Robles

English 130.06

Professor Gill Mayberry

October 25, 2017

“The Best Writing is Rewriting” 2 drafts, 1 Tutorial, 1 Teacher Conference.

                                                                                      (Provocative Title) Gun Control: Beneficial to All

(Hook) The manipulative rhetoric against gun control is exposed as Daniel Webster states, “They are masterful at controlling the discussion and making it very difficult to come to a consensus. They fuel distrust of government”(3). (Bridge) Webster’s message here is “they”, being gun lobbyists have manipulated the conversation about gun laws for far too long now, making realistic solutions seemingly impossible. (Divided Stasis/Thesis) (Opponent’s Claim Informed by 3 Scholarly Sources) Although opponents claim gun laws violate the second amendment right of Americans, (Rhetor’s Main Claim Informed by 9 Scholarly Sources) gun laws can be beneficial to pro-gun and anti-gun supporters alike because the policies can (Support/Reason 1) financially lower medical expenses due to gun violence, (Support/Reason 2)  politically pivot stigmas surrounding gun ownership, and (Support/Reason 3) potentially lower racially biased statistics regarding gun violence in America.

(Narration) On October 1, 2017 the worst mass shooting in history changed Las Vegas forever.  Numerical damages include, “58 people dead and 546 wounded” (CBS News 1). These calculations show just how damaging firearms can be to everyone in America. Policies can minimize these traumatizing events regardless of opinions. The fact is that the harder it is to obtain firearms, the less likely tragic events such as those in Vegas will occur. Supporters on gun control understand this concept for it adheres to international trends. This statement goes without saying stricter gun laws promote a safer environment for all. According to Max Fisher, a reporter for The Atlantic, “In part by forbidding almost all forms of firearm ownership, Japan has as few as two gun-related homicides a year”(Fisher 1). Now this is an extreme example and it must be taken into account that Americans still have the right to gun ownership, however, if more precautions are taken to ensure firearms do not end up in the wrong hands then policies similar to Japan’s can benefit the public. Critics will refuse this logic in fear of losing their 2nd amendment right, but this is not the case. Policies will simply prevent firearms from ending up in the hands of someone who is potentially dangerous to others or themselves.

(Confirmation) Gun Control laws can change the marred reputation of firearms in America drastically. Statistics regarding gun violence involvement in financial, social, and racial narratives can just as well be rewritten if policies are in place. For example, according to GunsAmerica news, Hawaii is a model of how well stricter policies can reduce crime all while upholding the second amendment as it states, “Residents must take a state-mandated class, get a clearance/permit from police, and then present this to the gun store just to buy a gun; a process that can take some time”(GunsAmerica 1).  If the rest of the country follows Hawaii’s model of control over firearms then, as a country, the United States can re-establish itself as a safe environment to live in.      

(Concession/Refutation) It is, indeed, true that critics of stricter gun laws fear losing their second amendment right, insisting policies of any kind infringe on their said right.  (1) According to, “Trust the People: The Case Against Gun Control” by David Kopel, “Only through the blatant abrogation of explicit constitutional rights is gun control even possible. It must be enforced with such violations of individual rights as intrusive search and seizure” (Kopel 1). (2) Other opponents claim, “People should also be aware that most gun-related deaths are suicides, not murders” (Davidson 1) to justify there is no correlation of gun ownership and the danger it has to other humans. (3) Opponents also say, “Violent crime in Honolulu is below the national average and trending downwards. However, there is violent crime.”  (Refutation: Rhetor’s Main Claim + Support 1) But, gun policies can benefit those both in favor and those against because financially, gun violence affects everyone in America regardless of their stance on gun control.  (Toulmin Warrant) To dismiss this fact would be unwise considering money is a driving motive to many people’s opinions. Nationally, gun violence cost Americans billions in taxes to support growing medical and legal costs. (1) According to Mike McLively, senior staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “gun violence likely surpasses $100 billion in costs. That's equal to the country's annual federal spending on education and surpasses the federal transportation budget” (Picchi 1) This staggering figure sums up just how dangerous guns are not only to humans, but to their wallets as well. Instead of funding new school or libraries, Americans pay taxes just to pay for the crimes of others. A stricter gun policy can change this. (2) Furthermore, this is an everyday expenditure, according to Natasha Bertrand of Business Insider, “American taxpayers pay roughly $12.8 million every day to cover the costs of gun-related deaths and injuries” (Bertrand 2). Policies and regulations can reduce this cost drastically. In fact, programs funded to reduce gun violence cost less than what taxpayers are currently giving up. (3) According to Jennifer Cruz, reporter from Guns.com, “Advance Peace was modeled off of a similar program enacted in Richmond, California. During a five-year period, the city has seen a 50 percent decrease in firearm assaults and 54 percent drop in gun homicides” (Cruz 1). This means that taxpayers not only were able reduce crime, they were also able to reduce the amount of money they put towards medical and legal costs with this program. The money of American can be spent reducing crime instead of paying for it. (Conclusion)  With this information, it is clear to see that stricter gun policies can financially alleviate every taxpayer in America.

(Refutation Support 2) The dangers of firearms without regulation is a political issue as it affects every class of citizen.  (Toulmin Warrant) Underestimating the consequences of lack of gun policy is a mistake that pollutes the political climate. (1) According to Richard Perez of the New York Times, “Gun control advocates say politicians’ fear of the gun rights lobby is exaggerated, but even in swing states and some more liberal ones, that lobby has a reputation for punishing those who step out of line” (Perez 1). This means gun lobbyist use political manipulation in order to carouse politicians to side with anti-policy. Such tactics take away from true opinions stagnating gun reform. Moreover, most lobbyists will then push politicians to agree with other Republican values to drive more support to their cause. (2) This correlation is proven as, “8 Figures on Gun Ownership, and Attitudes, in America” states, “Republicans are far more likely to own guns” (New York Times 2). Republicans are the majority of gun owners, so they are also less interested in restricting gun ownership. (3) Interestingly enough, the same Republicans against gun reform are also against Medicaid programs yet, according to Melissa Healy of the LA Times, “Nationally, 30% of gunshot victims treated in hospitals during the study period were insured by Medicaid.” (Conclusion) Without a change in gun reform this vicious cycle of political weaponization will continue to thrive and damage politics for the worse.

(Refutation 3)  When speaking of gun control race plays an essential role in the conversation. (Toulmin Warrant) No matter the race, guns are dangerous to everyone. (1) According to  a report from Richard Reeves, “firearm deaths accounted for over 11 percent of all years of potential life lost among the black population, but less than 6 percent of all years of potential life lost among the white population” (Reeves 2). For White Americans firearms were accountable for a humbling 6 percent while African Americans faced a staggering 11 percent loss of population due to gun violence. In both cases, lives were lost, families were broken, and all that is left is the question whether gun reform could have prevented any of these tragedies. The cause of death maybe the only difference between the race. (2) According to a 2015 Brookings Institution study, “77 percent of white gun deaths are from suicide. Only 19 percent are homicides while a staggering 82 percent of African-American gun deaths are homicides. Only 14 percent are suicides.” These statistics show that although the cause of death may vary by race, the danger of firearms are there nevertheless. (3) Furthermore, racial prejudices play a role in America's current stance on gun regulation as The Washington Post states, “Eighty-four percent of gun owners in the United States are white, according to data from the 2012 American National Election Study (ANES). Since whites make up 63 percent of the U.S. population, their representation among gun owners is higher than their share of the general population.” It is safe to say that because the White population are more affected by suicide, they do not see how gun regulation will help. However, there is a correlation: if reforms can regulate and determine who is capable of safely owning a gun, perhaps the suicide rate from firearms will decrease in the White population. (Conclusion) With this information above, it is clear to see that gun reform can indeed decrease such troubling racial statistics due to gun violence.

(Summation) The fact is that America’s relationship with its firearms has become sour. Necessity has now become danger as gun ownership grows. Mass shooting after mass shooting has yet to change the minds of those against gun reform, but now as money, politics, and race are involved, perhaps America has switch their stance for the wellbeing of this Country. Policies will promote a safer, more inhabitable environment for America and prevent tragedies such as the Las Vegas shooting. As a nation, it is time for Americans to push for a safer country.