Rhetorical Response 4

Well, we can see the common reading contains plenty of resources cited from other place. I think this is one of the features of an argument essay.

In my opinion, argument essays always let out two main ideas about one thing. In the common reading, the two ideas were “we should allow people to own a gun so their right can be protected” and “we should not allow everyone to have a gun so that the society will be better”.

We can find that there is an individual right to own a gun, but on special conditions. I mean, the right to owe a gun has reasonable restrictions.

However, people always worries about whether their rights can be ensured or be protected, so there is a long time debate on whether it is suitable for an individual to own a firearm.

It is a contradiction between the public right and individual right, for example, if you have a pistol or a rifle with you, and you injured or someone, can we say that the person guaranteed his right to have a gun? Then what about the injured one’s right to live on the world?

All of the above is another feature. That is argument.

Anyone who want to convince others with his own idea should give examples and most important, the process of the provident.

What’s more, we should factor all the evidence we find and the topic itself. For example, we can factor the topic of the right to bear arms from these angles below:

The safety of the society, the right of individual, the effect of other country, the political and economics impact on the whole world and so on.

In the argument article, we should give both sides of one question but never do it in a subjective way. We need to remember that what we are going to do is to convince people in a objective way and they should be convinced by all the facts but not only the facts which supports the idea of our own.

Just like the common reading elaborated:

Different experts have declared their different ideas. One parts says that too many firearm injures have proved that it is so dangerous for the society if every citizen has the right to have a gun. Statistics are clear; we can see that private citizens own more than 200 million firearms, increasing by 4 million annually. (From From The Right to Bear Arms: Constitutional Law, Politics, and Public Health Lawrence Gostin, J.D)If a household own a gun in the home, the possibility of killing a family member will increase much.

Owing a gun can also lead many social moral problems such as the using of suicides. What’s more, there will be a great burden in the economy of the country and the whole world. The tax payers must spend a lot of money in protecting the right to own a gun, and also the issue to control the gun in order to avoid firearms misusing. That will be a big contradiction and it is difficult to solve.

However, there is surely another point of view. Not owing a gun may be just an ideal thinking. Just imagine, you do not want to hurt or injure anyone, so you do not have a gun with you. But how can you guarantee that other people will not hurt you or even want to kill you? Here comes out another method, which says owing a gun is only to defense oneself. We can use guns for the great common good.

Apart from cited evidences, we can still work on ourselves to solve those problems, for example. If I were required to do a argument essay of the topic of the same as common reading.

I will do it in this way at the end of my article:

Since both of the two ideas are reasonable, how can the country court choose? I suggest we should go to the history.

Maybe at first we should seriously define what arms mean. In 1787, there is little information about the arms. However at that time, New York ratified the constitution, it added a list of proposed Amendments which says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.(From Alo Konsen) in the late 1700s, people can easily get a weapon from every where, unlike today, they can use the dangerous firearms whenever they want. This kind of condition had led chaos in the society. Guns are out of control and deaths are everywhere. As the development of the weapons goes fast, I am wondering whether it is possible to go back to the dark times.

To sum up, to do an argument successfully needs plenty of resources and a clear process of proving the idea. The argument should be reasonable and objective.