7-4 Summative Assessment Persuasive Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Persuasive essay...

Description

1

7-4 Summative Assessment: Persuasive Essay

John Fiano Southern New Hampshire University ENG-123 Tracy Kalkwarf August 15, 2021

2 7-4 Summative Assessment: Persuasive Essay

In 1787 the Constitution of the United States became law. Part of the Constitution is that the Second Amendment gives the citizens of the United States the right to bear arms. The Federal and State Governments established regulations to help protect law-abiding citizens from gun violence while giving them the right to possess firearms to protect themselves and their families. Gun control laws have been a debate with the government since 1963 when John F. Kennedy died from a gunshot. To this day, every time a crime involving a firearm occurs, both federal and local Governments question the rules set to determine whether there is a call for stricter gun control. The current gun laws are not the issue how they are enforcing them is, furthermore the Gun Control Act of 1968 did not change statistics, the states with strict gun laws continue to have high gun violence rates, and when laws become enforced, the numbers in crime rate narrows. The first key point demonstrates how the government reacted to gun violence by putting a gun control measure in place that, in the end, did not make a difference. The federal government conducted a study at all the state levels that involved individuals in the age groups between 18-20 years old. The analysis conducted, which included murder, robbery, and aggravated assaults, showed the total number of these types of crimes was in the 2000s (Kleck, 2019). The government felt the answer to the study was to institute a new law or control in place. On October 22, 1968, The Federal Government established the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968. The purpose of the law was to ban people between the ages of 18- 20 from purchasing a firearm. After that law was in place, there was no impact on this age group's arrests for homicides, robbery, or aggravated assaults (Kleck,

3 2019). That is, criminals do not follow laws. If criminals followed the rules that the governments establish, they would not be criminals. They would be law-abiding citizens, and there would be no need for rules or Law enforcement due to everyone doing the right thing. The government has gun control laws in place. Now they need to ensure they remain enforced. This article supports the argument because it demonstrates how the government's current law, once active to lower crime and gun violence rates between individuals ages 18 to 20 years old, did not change the statistics. The second key point will show that just because laws come into effect, they will not work if there is no system to ensure they remain enforced. States with strict gun laws still have high gun violence. In 2017 in Orlando, FL, a mass shooting took place inside a nightclub, and the President of the United States who was President Obama called for stricter gun control laws. (Stroebe et al., 2017). His response to the shooting was an effort to make the people feel more comfortable and show that the government supports them. Adding to the current gun laws is not the answer. Rather than adding a new law or control, investigators should determine what got missed and why when the investigation occurs. Due to the federal government allowing state governments to create or add to federal gun control laws as they see necessary for their state, each state's gun control measures are and can be different. For example, just because an individual is permitted in one state to carry concealed does not mean that their permit is valid in another state because not all states recognize each other's gun control laws. Therefore, the Gifford’s Law center created a map grading every state's gun control laws, using a letter system from A to F, where A+ denotes the best and F as the worse. Illinois received a B+, and California received an A.

4 (Celentano & Abdelfattah, 2020). In the same article, a chart rating the states in gun violence from 2013-2018 showed that Illinois had the highest rate of gun violence totaling 17,556, and California, with the second-highest gun violence totaling 16,306. California had the second-highest gun violence and, in 2017, has had the deadliest mass shooting since 1982. (Celentano & Abdelfattah, 2020). Per the government's argument that stricter gun laws suppress crimes. The top two states with the most gun violence should have a D or an F rating on their gun control laws, which is not the case. Looking at the facts in the article, many of the states who scored lower for the gun control laws also reported having a lower gun violence rate. This source supports the argument that current gun laws are not the issue. There needs to be a better way to enforce the laws in place. It shows that states with effective regulations for gun control and gun violence per Gifford's law center can be higher than states with less. The third point demonstrates an event that got established to enforce the law and the results caused by the event. The events' results illustrated that enforcing laws reduces the crime rate and gun violence. In the 1990s, the Boston Police department led an operation with youth workers and Harvard University researchers. The operation was called Operation Ceasefire (Braga et al., 2013). The city put the operation together to reach out to the local neighborhood gangs to make them aware that the violence needed to stop, and legal action would be enforced to the full extent of the law if not. At this time, the neighborhood street gangs made up 60 percent of the youth homicides in Boston (Braga et al., 2013). Once the operation was ongoing in the streets of Boston, the street gang homicide rate in the city diminished by 31 percent (Braga et al., 2013). According to the article, the crime rate reduced once the local police department found a way to work

5 with other outside agencies to help enforce the local laws that were already established and put the plan into action. This source supports the argument because it shows results and demonstrates what happens when an operation comes about to enforce the laws versus new laws or control measures coming into play. When it comes to gun violence, it is very tragic when people become hurt or die by it. The Federal and State Governments would get people to believe that they happened because current regulations are not strong enough. That there need to be adjustments to the current gun controls laws. The argument has shown that the government set a rule to stop 18- 20-year-old adults from getting guns. The source also demonstrated that they continued to commit crimes and found ways around the laws set in place. Also, that states with the best gun laws still have the highest gun violence. The regulations that get put in place are only as good as the system to enforce them. Finally, the sources have shown that the crime rate does reduce when current laws get enforced and start holding the individuals breaking the laws responsibly. As stated in the opening paragraph, the federal and local governments will try and get people to believe that new gun control laws measures need to become implemented every time there is a spike in crime or gun violence. The criminals are not following the current gun laws set in place. Instead of creating new ones, the government needs to find a better way to enforce the current gun control laws already set in place.

6 References Braga, A. A., Hureau, D. M., & Papachristos, A. V. (2013). Deterring gang-involved gun violence: Measuring the impact of boston’s operation ceasefire on street gang behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30(1), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940013-9198-x Celentano, J., & Abdelfattah, E. (2020). Analyzing Gun Violence in the United States, [Editorial]. 11th IEEE Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON),, 0258–0261. https://doi.org/10.1109/UEMCON51285.2020.9298154. Kleck, G. (2019). Regulating guns among young adults. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(5), 689–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-019-09476-6 Stroebe, W., Leander, N., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2017). The impact of the orlando mass shooting on fear of victimization and gun-purchasing intentions: Not what one might expect. PLOS ONE, 12(8), e0182408. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182408...