I put in these opinions, because they use a primary source as background knowledge, and cited it: My opinion is that I think we should strengthen guns laws so that it is harder to buy guns then “making plans with a friend on the weekend”. (Emma Gonzalez)
“I have a dream” that is what Martin Luther King Jr said on August 28, 1963. Now I have a dream that the gun control laws will become more rigorous, here in 2018.
This one was so strongly stated and explained and convincing: My opinion is that we should strengthen gun laws. My evidence is in paragraph 2 one the Pro side where they mention a cycle about mass shootings or gun deaths, people are constantly going through a cycle that hasnʻt been broken for a while which is where the idea for strict gun laws come from. In the con side paragraph 2 it also mentions making gun laws stricter isnʻt gonna stop anything, but not making them strict isnʻt gonna stop anything either, also connecting to paragraph 8 explaining that people who use guns for self defense isnʻt the case most of the time, but mainly for hunting or sports. Lastly my evidence from the con side in paragraph 11 quoting the second Amendment, is a dumb idea, what it means is, the Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms, but once again in paragraph 5 it clearly explains everything wrong with using that card, because it was written long ago before police protection, and when wars were spreading like wildfire. My back round knowledge about why I support making gun laws stronger is, me realizing that people who fight for these types of laws, never get answered no matter how desperate, but why is it so hard to make such a law? Creating stronger gun laws dosenʻt mean banning guns, people who donʻt support this say things like “you canʻt ban guns how will we protect ourselves” but we arenʻt banning guns or putting you at risk, we are trying to help you.
This one was concise, and limited to only the most important words. The transitions were smooth and logical. The pro/con evidence chosen were logical: In my opinion we should enhance the gun control laws. In P28 it says that they created the Second Amendment because “The Founders of our country wanted the people to be able to protect themselves from over-powerful governments.” however in P7 it says “but it was written in a very different time: there was no police protection, and there were no automatic weapons available. ” Also in P28 it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” however in P12 it says “gun ownership is a false freedom if all residents of a community or country are not free from gun violence.” I have learned, that guns have been sold to mentally disordered people and in result there has been mass shootings. If the gun control laws were stronger or included more background checks most likely that would lower the chance of this happening again.
Even though this one wasnʻt written in complete sentences, it used the same text evidence as the example above, and the order that it was given created a logical flow: In my opinion I believe that the government should strengthen gun laws. Con- In paragraph 27 it states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be broken or changed. Pro- In paragraph 12 it states that we can see that gun ownership is a false freedom if all residents of a community or country are not free from gun violence. Con- In paragraph 26 it states that the Second Amendment ensures that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Pro- In paragraph 7 it states that the Second Amendment grants U.S. citizens the right to bear arms, but it was written in a very different time: there was no police protection, and there were no automatic weapons available. My Pro- I believe that after the Las Vegas shooting the government strengthen gun laws but that never happened and now after the Florida shooting we should definitely change the laws.
This one presented the evidence in a different order, but it was clear that that author supports changes in guns laws for important reasons, but the author also realizes there are still important problems around this issue: My opinion after reading this text is that we should change gun laws. One of the reasons why changing gun laws is a good idea is because in p8 it states; Few people use the guns in proper ways. Also in p14 it says; Deadly weapons are easy to access and studying them is forbidden. The downside of my argument is that in p20 it states; “Protection offered by law guarantees nothing. Every person is ultimately responsible for his or her safety.” Lastly in p29 it says; “Gun control takes away the ordinary citizen’s constitutional right to possess firearms.” Finally my background knowledge on this topic is that guns cause people not to just kill others, but to commit suicide which will affect others. Adding more gun laws will prevent people from killing all together.
This one is simple, but effective:In my opinion I believe that we should strengthen gun laws. In Paragraph 22 people talk about how the Second Amendment was made to help us and it did, but in Paragraph 7 it says that the Second Amendment is now getting old and we have more powerful guns like automatic guns. Also in Paragraph 15 people also say that more laws about guns wouldn’t work, but in Paragraph 1 things are getting worse so I think we should do something about it. Just like the shooting in Florida the Kid had a gun and shot lots of innocent people. Our laws should change so that our country is safer.
On this example, I would have preferred more explanation behind the thinking, but it had original text evidence choices: In my opinion we should fight to strengthen gun control laws. My first piece of con evidence is in paragraph 19 where the text says, “France has far stricter gun laws than the U.S., but 130 were slain, mostly with illegal guns, in the 2015 Paris attacks.” My first piece of pro evidence comes from paragraph 14 where the author says, “As things now stand, deadly weapons are easily accessible, studies about the causes of gun violence are prohibited, and the super-political gun industry profits from death. These facts are, in turn, irresponsible, unthinkable and gutless.” My second piece of con evidence comes from paragraph 26 where the text states, “Those who think that a ban could prevent such killings ignore the nature of evil. Those that seek political gain by saying that “guns are evil” refuse to address the complex motivations of killers.” My second piece of pro evidence comes from paragraph 9, “Guns for recreation are fine, but we don’t need to have loose purchasing laws, weak safety standards or massive stockpiles of automatic weapons for the sake of sportsmen.” One piece of evidence that comes from my background knowledge is that at some gun shops background checks arenʻt strict enough and arenʻt detailed enough, so guns are easier to access.
This is one from using the highest Lexile level: My opinion is that laws canʻt stop a Vegas like events. My first piece of evidence is the following “The the federal Gun Control Act is as complex as antitrust law, it did nothing to prevent the murder of 58 innocents.” That is on the Con side on Para 20. Laws like this Did not stop events like Vegas and Parkland people will get guns illegally. My second piece of evidence is the following “France has far stricter gun laws than the U.S., but 130 were slain, mostly with illegal guns, in the 2015 Paris attacks.” This is located on the Con side on Para 21. Other nations have tried to stop shootings however that did not work how will U.S. gun laws stop a shooting. Here is the evidence on the Pro side. Here is my first piece of evidence “powerful gun lobby tamps down any attempt to legislate a more sane set of policies on firearms.” This is located on Para 3 It will be hard to pass a law if people that Have political allies say no to change. My second piece of evidence from the Pro side is the following “I grew up in rural Texas in a hunting family and lived my childhood with a gun in my hand.” This is located on Para 14. If people have guns for a while they can keep it after more laws. And that is the problem people are always going to have guns. My Personal background knowledge and experience is that some people need guns to live. When i lived in Kipahulu and we had no money to go shopping. We needed to go out and hunt for food. And that living in the wild you need self defense. Sometimes people would go in our property to hunt without permission. If these people mean harm what can we do call 911 we are 20 miles from Hana town we can be dead by then. Taking away guns wonʻt stop a shooting and it can harm other parts of life to.
This last one admits that there is evidence that contradicts his evidence, but he ends very strongly: In my opinion I think that we should strengthen gun control laws. I think this because in paragraph 15, it says “Currently, deadly weapons are easily accessible and studies about the causes of gun violence are prohibited.”. Another reason is because in paragraph 8, it says “The Second Amendment grants U.S. citizens the right to bear arms, but it was written in a very different time: there was no police protection, and there were no automatic weapons available. “. One flaw to my opinion is in paragraph 23, it says “”Protection” offered by law guarantees nothing. Every person is ultimately responsible for his or her safety.”. One more flaw to my opinion is in paragraph 22, it says “France has far stricter gun laws than the U.S. Yet, 130 were slain, mostly with illegal guns, in the 2015 Paris attacks.”. My final reason is because in the Valentines Day 2018 school shooting, one person that had a gun killed 17 people at the high school. I think that strengthening the gun laws would minimize the possibility of this happening again significantly. This is why I think that we should strengthen gun laws.
