However, this paper will focus on the pros of implementing gun control laws, which outweigh the situation of not having these laws in our societies that comprises individuals from diverse backgrounds. According to the United States Bureau of the Census, the year 2000 alone witnessed approximately 30,000 persons die from firearm injuries. This was an alarming statistics considering the fact this number was greater than resulting deaths from drug abuse and HIV related complications (Ik-Whan, Kwon and Baack 534). According to Wallack, Winett and Lee (206), the state of California and the United States in general witnessed high rates of violence during the 1990s because of lack of legislation to control civilian use of firearms. For this reason, firearm related cases were the leading cause of deaths among the youth attributed to the widespread availability of firearms.
The purpose of the sources in passage one is to inform the readers about current statistics concerning gun control laws and firearm use in the United States. As part of the introductory paragraph, the first two sources give readers a basic idea of numbers of firearms and problems with firearms within the past decade, showing that the information is up to date. The third source offers a reason from research about the source of the problem. The amount of sources in this passage are appropriate for the information that is being given, and no one source is relied on too much. In order to make them integrate better within the passages, in one case the citation method needs to be corrected. The third source can be made more credible by stating what kind of profession the authors of the paper are in.
Passage One Revision:
However, this paper will focus on the pros of implementing gun control laws, which outweigh the situation of not having these laws in our society comprised of individuals from diverse backgrounds. According to the United States Bureau of the Census, the year 2000 alone witnessed approximately 30,000 people dead from firearm injuries. This statistic is alarming, considering firearm related deaths were greater than deaths from drug abuse and HIV related complications (Ik-Whan, Kwon and Baack 534). According to scholars Wallack, Winett, and Lee, the state of California and the United States in general witnessed high rates of violence during the 1990s because of lack of legislation to control civilian use of firearms (206). For this reason, firearm related cases were the leading cause of deaths among the youth and attributed to the widespread availability of firearms.
The first source from the U.S. Bureau of the Census was not revised because it is well integrated into the source. The wording of the second source, Ik-Whan, Kwon and Baack, was changed to more directly link its significance with the previous statistic. The third source was done incorrectly, placing the page number in the middle of the sentence, so it was moved to the end of the sentence. Also, “scholars” was added to describe the authors, giving them more credibility since their article came from a peer reviewed journal.
Passage Two:
According to a study conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health between 1996 and 1999, respondents were questioned about the public’s feeling of safety when more individuals carried concealed firearms, and whether it was justified for the government to allow private ownership of firearms. The results of the study revealed that American citizens overwhelmingly felt insecure when members of their community began carrying guns. An example of a well-documented incident where innocent civilians lost their lives was the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting by a single mentally ill gunman that resulted to the deaths of 32 people and left scores injured (Lal 1590). This attack led to widespread criticism from the international community about U.S. legislation that allows private citizens to own firearms. Therefore, the federal government should head the call of the masses and implement gun laws so that the safety of civilians is not threatened.
The purpose of the sources in passage two show what the public or majority of people believe when it comes to gun control laws in the United States. Because the laws of the United States depend highly upon what the majority of people decide, these statistics are very relevant. The first source, from the Harvard School of Public Health questions citizens on a specific question, their comfort with existing laws about firearms, while the second source demonstrates the type of incident that led to not only national but international discussion about the gun laws of the United States. The first source can be made more effective by making the sentences concerning it more succinct, while the second quote needs a couple additional words to link it to the previous idea of American discomfort with current laws.
Passage Two Revision:
According to a study conducted by the Harvard school of public health between 1996 and 1999 concerning public citizens’ feeling of safety when more individuals carried concealed firearms and legal justification allowing the private ownership of firearms, American citizens overwhelmingly felt insecure when members of their community began carrying guns. An example of a well-documented incident affecting the opinion of American citizens, where innocent civilians lost their lives, was the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting by a single mentally ill gunman that resulted in the deaths of 32 people and injury of many more (Lal 1590). This attack led to widespread criticism by the International community of the U.S. legislation that allows private citizens to own firearms. The federal government should heed the call of the masses and implement gun laws so that the safety of civilians is not threatened.
Passage two is revised so that the intent of the sources, to depict American sentiment about gun laws and reasons behind it, is more clear. The first two sentences are combined because they form a single idea from the first source for the reader. The words “affecting the opinion of American Citizens” is added to the second source to make the purpose of including this statistic clear.
Passage Three:
First, it is important for us to have a consensus that no right is absolute, even those stipulated in the bill of rights and those supposedly granted by God. For instance, the first amendment allows me the right to free speech, however this is limited, as I cannot publish malicious lies in the media about an individual, say a public figure, as this would be labeled libel. If prosecuted in a court of law then I face possible abridgment of my rights. A good example to demonstrate why the right to own guns privately should be abridged is in the case of imminent danger rule. An individual cannot lie to a sold out theatre that there is fire because this is likely to cause injury. The reason for the abridgement of rights is that they clash easily. In this case, the right to free speech clashes with the right of the audience not to be trampled. Similarly, we can apply the same analysis to the second amendment and argue that if the rights of individuals to own private firearm clashes with the right of majority citizen’s public safety, then gun control laws are justified (Loftin, Milton and David 315).
This passage uses only one source, which helps describe the justification behind having gun control laws. The passage describes the similarity between gun control laws and other laws, showing how the first amendment and laws limiting free speech are parallel to the second amendment and laws limiting the use of guns. Because only one source is used as part of an analogy between amendments and laws, it is probably best left as it is so it does not distract from the body of the passage. This paragraph needs some general editing to make the analogy more clear, and therefore make the source more useful.
Passage Three Revision:
First, it is important to agree that no right is absolute, even those stipulated in the Bill of Rights and those supposedly granted by God. A comparison of the First Amendment, which concerns free speech, and the Second Amendment, which gives the right to bear arms, illustrates this idea. The First Amendment allows individuals the right to free speech; however, this is limited. People cannot publish malicious lies in the media about an individual such as a public figure because this is libel. If prosecuted in a court of law, then people who libel face possible abridgment of their rights. A good example to demonstrate why the right to own guns privately should be limited is in the case of imminent danger rule. Imminent danger applies to the First Amendment because an individual cannot shout in a theatre that there is fire, because this is likely to cause injury to many citizens. In this case, the right to free speech clashes with the right of the audience not to be trampled. Similarly, we can apply the same analysis to the Second Amendment and argue that if the rights of individuals to own private firearm clashes with the right of majority citizens’ public safety, then gun control laws are justified (Loftin, Milton and David 315).
The main changes made to passage three were editing in the first part of the paragraph, so that the analogy made using the source would make sense. Making each sentence link with the idea in the next sentence helps make the use of the source more effective because it builds up a logical argument.
