Nicholas Kristof in “Lessons From the Virginia Shooting” (2015), implies that the recent Virginia shooting was able to happen because of the lax gun regulations in the United States. Kristof uses the example of what happened in Virginia and other data showing gun violence in the country to prove that having stricter gun laws in America is crucial to the safety and survival of the citizens. Kristof states that there are more regulations towards toys, ladders, and swimming pools than there are towards guns to prove that gun violence is being ignored. Kristof is telling all Americans how crucial it is that we push for stricter gun laws for the safety of everyone in the country.
I agree with Kristoff. Guns are weapons that are made to kill and it is often that they end up in the hands of those that are dangerous. It is understandable that some may want a gun for protection, safety, or hunting, but there need to be strict regulations to make sure they do not get into the wrong hands. There are many solutions to this issue of too many dangerous people with guns. One solution is stricter background checks, especially at flea markets that travel through towns and do not do background checks. There can also be safes or passcode locks on guns, which is an idea Kristoff discussed. I still remember the details of the incident in Sandy Hook Elementary School, that occurred a few years ago. This is also an incident where guns fell into the hands of the wrong person, but this time it was not just a gun, but assault rifles. I can understand that people should have the right to a gun, but I do not understand why it is that peopel are allowed to own assault rifles. It is unnecessary and extremely dangerous and should not have costed the lives of twenty-six people in an elementary school.
I agree with Kristoff. Guns are weapons that are made to kill and it is often that they end up in the hands of those that are dangerous. It is understandable that some may want a gun for protection, safety, or hunting, but there need to be strict regulations to make sure they do not get into the wrong hands. There are many solutions to this issue of too many dangerous people with guns. One solution is stricter background checks, especially at flea markets that travel through towns and do not do background checks. There can also be safes or passcode locks on guns, which is an idea Kristoff discussed. I still remember the details of the incident in Sandy Hook Elementary School, that occurred a few years ago. This is also an incident where guns fell into the hands of the wrong person, but this time it was not just a gun, but assault rifles. I can understand that people should have the right to a gun, but I do not understand why it is that peopel are allowed to own assault rifles. It is unnecessary and extremely dangerous and should not have costed the lives of twenty-six people in an elementary school.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/opinion/lessons-from-the-murders-of-tv-journalists-in-the-virginia-shooting.html?_r=1
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo personal response, Yehudit.
ReplyDeleteSentence three is supposed to state the author's purpose. Your's was more of a continuation of the second sentence. The fourth sentence did not mention the specific audience, only the American people as a whole. Nor did it state the relationship that he established the reader. The precis was more of a personal reflection.
ReplyDeletePlease go back to the instructions on the Rhetorical Precis and specifically focus on sentences three and four. You didn't address those instructions for analyzing purpose, tone, and audience.
ReplyDeleteGreat response, Yehudit. You made it clear that you agreed with his opinion and even brought a solution to the problem. You addressed the common argument of others and responded to it which strengthens your argument. You brought outside knowledge to show that this isn't just one isolated event which is very effective. However, you switched your argument mid-response from saying how guns should have stricter regulations etc. to banning assault rifles. It is better to stick with the original argument in such a short response.
ReplyDelete