Erin Costa

ENGL 102-057

Rogerian Argument Essay

21 March 2013

Gun Control Argument: Should there be Stricter Gun Laws?

            Within the last few decades there has been an increasing number of tragedies to strike the United States. This particular type of tragedy is a massacre style; one of our own citizens killing innocent others amongst them. These recent tragedies have led to the uproar of an argument regarding gun control and the laws that accompany the ownership of a gun. The current gun control debate is a major topic at both a political and social level and affects almost everyone living in the United Sates today. Some citizens call for stricter gun control laws, while others stand firmly to protect the rights granted under the Second Amendment. As our world unravels into a more modern society, lawmakers are faced with the option to restrict gun laws or to keep these laws the same as they have been for centuries.

            Laws regarding gun control vary from state to state in the United States. There are no universal laws that cover the country as a whole. In Texas, gun laws are considered open and unrestrictive. According to a Texas gun control website there is, "no state registration of firearms" ("Texas Gun Laws"). A citizen of Texas does not need to undergo a licensure process to own a gun. The only licensure process necessary in Texas is if an individual wishes to carry a concealed gun. The website "Texas Gun Laws" states, "with proper licensing (Concealed Handgun License) an individual may carry a pistol or revolver on them as long as it remains concealed" ("Texas Gun Laws"). There is a license needed in order to carry a concealed gun, in other words, you may carry a gun that is not visible to others but still remains on your person. If the gun can be seen by others it is considered brandishing and that violates the individual's rights. One law in Texas that sets it aside from others is that, "Machine guns legal" ("Texas Gun Laws"). Machine guns are illegal in most every state besides Texas. A machine gun is primarily used for mass killing, which brings up the question as to why they are legal in Texas for anyone to own. Lastly the website "Texas Gun Laws" explains, "The only limit on magazines in Texas is the number of rounds you are physically able to cram into the thing and/or carry and/or afford" ("Texas Gun Laws"). Texas puts no limit on the amount of ammunition a gun owner can hold. This is a controversial law because it is unsure as to why a person may need an extensive amount of ammunition at one time. In most other states, owning an excessive amount of ammunition could be seen as suspect. Unlike Texas, the gun laws in California are more restricted. A California government site states, "You may obtain an HSC by passing the DOJ HSC test administered by a DOJ Certified Instructor" (Brown). In other words, one must work to earn a Handgun Safety Certification in order to own and gun, as well as a licensure process through the state of California. In California there is state registration to own a gun, a much more lengthy and a little more invasive process than in Texas, where state licensure is not necessary. In addition, "Only handguns and long guns are legal" (Brown). California does not allow machine guns like Texas does. Machine guns are not seen as necessary to an ordinary citizen in the state of California. Machine guns are left to military personnel and other workers of protection. The last primary law to be explained that is found on the government website states, "Cannot own a device that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition" (Brown). California puts a limit on the number of rounds a gun owner can hold at one time. Unlike Texas where there is no limit of ammunition, California enforces their ammunition limits. It is seen as unnecessary for a person to own more than ten rounds of ammunition, and any more could be seen as suspicious. The differences between Texas and California gun laws are obvious; Texas enforces laws that are less confining while California enforces relatively strict gun laws. The argument becomes whether less confining laws or more restrictive laws are needed to more effectively protect citizens against guns in the modern world.

            The most recent influx of discussion regarding gun control stems from an issue that has been newly experienced in our society; mass killings of innocent civilians by one of our very own. In these tragedies there is the killer, or killers, and the victims. The victims are innocents, consisting of college students to elementary students and even ordinary movie audiences. The killers are amongst these innocent groups, normal citizens with an unexplainable desire to kill and scare others. A recent tragedy for most Americans today is known as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. In this particular tragedy, Adam Lanza barged his way into a Connecticut Elementary school, killing twenty students and six adults before taking his own life ("Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting"). According to a CNN article, "He grabbed three guns from the house -- a semi-automatic AR-15 assault rifle made by Bushmaster and pistols made by Glock and Sig Sauer -- and went to the elementary school wearing black fatigues and a military vest, according to a law enforcement official" ("Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting"). Lanza was not licensed to have these guns, they were his mothers and he took them from their house that morning. In the case of the Sandy Hook tragedy, the killer was unworthy of using a gun, however, he got hold of the guns because a person in his household legally owned the weapons. An article titled "Authorities Ask:" entail the guns belonged to his mother, and the need for her to have stashed these weapons is unknown (Christoffersen). The issue at hand here is that unstable persons are gaining control of guns that are too easily available to access and use.

            In a parallel tragedy in Colorado last year, James Holmes killed twelve and wounded fifty-eight members of the movie audience, in the opening premier of "The Dark Knight Rises" ("Family Identifies"). The killer targeted innocent people gathered to simply watch a newly released film that night. According to ABC News, "Holmes was carrying three weapons, including a .223 caliber Smith & Wesson assault rifle, which had a drum-style magazine with thecapacity to hold upwards of 100 rounds, a Remington 12 gauge shot gun, and a .40 Glock handgun. A fourth handgun, another Glock pistol, was found in the vehicle" ("Aurora, Colo Theater Shooting"). Holmes had three guns on his person and one more readily available in his car if necessary to carry out this shooting. According to the same ABC articles, "Holmes had purchased the four guns at local shops and more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet in the past 60 days, according to Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates. All the weapons and ammunition were purchased legally" ("Aurora, Colo Theater Shooting"). James Holmes purchases all of the weapons and ammunition legally, without being questioned. The issue that arises from this tragedy is how a person, like Holmes, is granted to own four guns and purchase such a substantial amount of ammunition without being questioned by authorities. Is it necessary for an ordinary citizen to have access to buy more than six-thousand rounds of ammunition, or is this a misuse of our human rights? Both the tragedies of Sandy Hook and the Aurora Theatre have sparked debate on gun control laws in the United States, and many authorities are wondering if revisions are in order.

            A current group in this gun control issue are made up of those who believe gun regulations should remain the same, without enforcing additional restrictions to our gun rights as citizens. A detractor of further gun laws, Eric Reed, speaks out to WND stating, "He's essentially restricting and punishing all law-abiding American citizens. He's taking people who have never committed a crime in their lives and he's trying to tell them that these guns are 'assault weapons.' Well, I've got guns in my home. If they're 'assault weapons,' then mine must be defective because they haven't assaulted anybody" (Schilling). Many, like Reed, are on a mission to protect their 2nd Amendment right to 'bear arms.' An oppositional view also supports the idea that guns are needed for hunting purposes, as well as to protect defenseless citizens against others that will find ways to own guns illegally if they truly desire the ownership. To change gun laws now would just be of inconvenience to current owners. It seems nearly impossible that the government could strip all gun owners of their weapons and force them to abide by brand new laws. A troubling idea for authorities is the question of why it would be necessary to banish the 2nd Amendment now when it has worked perfectly fine for the past two-hundred years. It has only been recently that all of these gun tragedies have risen, so there must be another reason other than inadequate gun laws. Is there truly another explanation for these recent tragedies, or is it, in fact, gun control that needs to be revised to end these issues? In refutation, the supporters of stricter gun control laws give outlooks on the necessary changes to current regulations, and why these modifications will benefit society.

            As the world continually develops technologically on a daily basis, it is clear that the gun rights set in previous societies before the twenty-first century, must be strengthened to accommodate and protect against modern humanity. A significant point made by firearms supporters implies that times have changed; in response of this change, gun laws should be reformed accordingly. Alongside the developing world, the ways to obtain guns also change. In today's society it is easy to get guns, especially through illegal gun exchanges. Government and other authorities must come up with ways to track and follow these illegal processes. With the technology of today, it should not be much of a task to keep an eye on these exchanges. This would limit the number of illegal guns being purchased and held in the hands of unworthy owners. Stronger gun regulations need to be followed prior to and upon new gun ownership. The licensure process to own a gun should be somewhat invasive. There should be background checks on the possible owner as well as any other person that is predicted to be frequently near the weapons. Also, there should be psychological testing for the owner and other people that are often around the owner and weapons. The testing should be in depth, with a possibly more than one mandatory testing. People that undergo various psychological tests are more likely to be understood and interpreted. The process of a background check of new gun owners is found within the process of gun licensure, but it is not thoroughly checked up on past the point of ownership. There should be psychological testing for people that seek gun ownership and possibly bi-yearly check-ins for people that currently own guns. Check-ups would track the mental states of owners and also provide more insight on how owners use or plan to use their guns. In the Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings, background checks and severe psychological testing of the killers may very well have provided foreshadowing of the events. The intense procedures could have detected the malicious intents of both killers, and may have prevented the events. A confusing issue within gun control is that there are different laws within each state. Texas has one set of laws, while California has another set of laws. A universal set of laws may reduce confusion and loopholes in the gun control system. It would be much easier to understand and enforce gun laws if they were set in a universal and federal manner across the United States.

Fig. 1. A powerful image to state gun control issues (creativecriminals.com).

            With such possible compromises, tragedies like the Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings may be prevented. The compromises may be seen as inconvenient, but the little hassle could generally save lives. Invasive processes like background checks and psychological testing may be a bother, but when they are tied into the process of saving lives, it seems as if they are worth the trouble. The banishment of the Second Amendment is not necessary, as long as gun regulations are more in depth and severe. After all, owning a gun should not be taken lightly; the purpose of a gun is primarily to kill, and when the victims of guns becomes the lives of innocent civilians, the issue becomes more than just about a few inconveniences faced during the ownership process.

Works Cited

ABC 7 News. "Aurora, Colo Theater Shooting Timeline, Facts." ABC 7. N.p., 26 July 2012.          Web. 20 Mar. 2013.     <http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/world_news&id=8743134>.

Brown, Edmund G., Jr. "California Firearms Laws." State Of California Office of Attorney           General. N.p., 2007. Web. 26 Feb. 2013.      <http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/forms/Cfl2007.pdf?>.

Christoffersen, John. "Authorities Ask: How Did Adam Lanza Obtain Guns Used in CT's             Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting?" WXYZ. Channel 7 News, 16 Dec. 2012.           Web. 21 Mar. 2013. <http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/authorities-ask-how-did-   adam-lanza-obtain-the-guns-used-in-sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting>.

CNN. "Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting: What Happened?" CNN. Cable News Network,            n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2013. <http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/us/sandy-hook-   timeline/index.html>.

Creativecriminals.com

Parker, Ryan, Joey Bunch, Kurtis Lee, John Ingold, Jordan Steffen, and Jennifer Brown. "Family Identifies 27-year-old Victim of Aurora Theater Shooting." - The Denver    Post. N.p., 20 July 2012. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.           <http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21118201/70-shot-12-killed-at-aurora-           movie-theater>.

Schilling, Chelsea. "47 States Revolt against Obama Gun Control." WND. N.p., 16 Jan. 2013.      Web. 21 Mar. 2013. <http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/47-states-revolt-against-obama-           gun-control/>.

"The Basics." Texas Gun Laws. N.p.. Web. 26 Feb 2013. <http://www.texasgunlaws.org/>.

Erin Costa

ENGL 102-057

Causal Argument Essay

26 February 2012

Did The United States Government have

 Foreknowledge of September 11th?

            After reviewing the actions of the government on September 1, 2001, it is evident that Government officials in the United States had substantial evidence and foreknowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Taking into account their actions on this day it is also evident that the government acted leisurely on one of the most tragic attacks on our country. There is much more that key individuals in the United States government should have done to protect their country against this day, especially with their foreknowledge of the events that occurred. This unsettling evidence and the unanswered mysteries that occurred on September 11th are the reasons why we live in a nation of fear and untrusting behavior towards our government.

            "Promptly" may not have been the best term to describe the government's reaction to the September 11th attacks. In an airborne attack, the military can issue the backup of fighter jets in just minutes. When there are situations, like those of 9/11, the military follows certain defense procedures. However, on 9/11 the military never sent jets to defend against the hijacked airplanes, even though they have full procedures to take into action when dealing with these exact situations. Griffin and Scott (9/11 and American Empire) once again add, “These changing stories suggest that the military has been trying to cover up the fact that a ‘stand down’ order was given on 9/11, canceling the military’s own standard operating procedures for dealing with possibly hijacked airplanes" (7). The absence of any defense in this extreme situation leads to many questions. More specifically, why did the United States government fail to prepare every defense tool possible when they were warned about these attacks? The most probable conclusion of the military’s lack of defense is that they may have been following a stand down order on September 11th. Why would a stand down order be given on the day of a major terrorist attack? In a time full of warnings of attacks, the government should have never placed a stand down order. The government made an irresponsible and dangerous act for our country. Similar to our military, there was a delay of action in the White House on September 11th. Vice President Dick Cheney has certain procedures to follow in emergencies such as 9/11. However, he was running a little too slow on that day. In addition 9/11 and American Empire  states, "According to this claim, therefore, Cheney did not take charge until about 20 minutes after the Pentagon had been hit (at 9:38)" (8). It took Cheney twenty minutes to react to the events and to begin giving orders to begin defense, a procedure that should take only minutes. The government seemed to react to the events on 9/11 with ease. A government that is entitled to protect its country in emergencies, instead decided to stand down. This ease leads to the uneasiness of investigators, gaining information that gives the government less and less credit for handling the events on 9/11, turning the minds of citizens into confusion.

            Amidst the accusations against the government during the time of the 9/11 attacks, there is one defense that is making a stand. Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States during 9/11, came out publicly defending the government's actions regarding 9/11. Cheney announces in his interview with The Washington Times, "I think it would have been unethical or immoral for us not to do everything we could in order to protect the nation against further attacks like what happened on 9/11'" (Ward). This is his defense against all of the evidence uncovered, leading Americans to believe the Bush administration did not do enough to prevent 9/11. Cheney uses the words 'unethical' and 'immoral' to describe how he would view his administration if they did not do everything in their power to protect their country against invasion. Cheney provides a powerful defense he uses to insure that our government fully intended and carried out the necessary procedures to protect our country. A very popular and effective defense against 9/11 is that it improved our country. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton (Without precedent) write, "September 11, 2001, was a day of unbearable suffering. It was also a day when we were united as Americans. We came together as citizens with a sense of urgency and of purpose" (344). Many say, like these authors suggest, that September 11th brought us together as a country and that all the horror in that day could be worth the good that came out of it. Our country today is a lot stronger and more aware of tragedies that could happen. Additionally, our government has done much more to protect our nation against these possible dangers. Cheney continues by saying, "'I thought the legal opinions that were rendered were sound. I thought the techniques were reasonable in terms of what [the CIA was] asking to be able to do. And I think it produced the desired result. I think it's directly responsible for the fact that we’ve been able to avoid or defeat further attacks against the homeland for 7 1/2 years'" (Ward). Dick states that America had been protected fully from foreign attacks for the remainder of his time in office. It is true that the government served to protect our country fully after 9/11. It is true that the government prevented any further attacks to be pursued. It is true that the government deserves to take credit for this planning and protection. However, that does not explain the events prior to 9/11; the events and warnings this administration disregarded that resulted in the attack that wounded our country forever.

Fig. 1.This photo represents an interview accusing Bush of foreknowledge of 9/11 (livingislam.org).

            Most Americans believe that the 9/11 attacks were completely unexpected and that the United States government was blindsided by these attacks. Yet, there are many pieces of evidence that have been released since the attacks that prove otherwise. According to 9/11 and the American Empire, "CIA Director George Tenet said that ‘the system was blinking red'"(5). An actual CIA director that served during the time of 9/11 spoke out on behalf of the events leading up to 9/11. Tenet makes it very clear that there were many warnings about a possible attack on America. He says 'the system was blinking red', implying that there were so many warnings that were nearly impossible to miss; the government just disregarded them (9/11 and the American Empire). The 9/11 Commission Report adds, "Also, there had been many warnings during the summer of 2001, several from foreign intelligence agencies, that there was going to be a spectacular attack on the United States in the near future" (5). The United States had received warnings not only from its own intelligence agencies, but even foreign intelligence. Yet, the United States still did not take them seriously enough. With all of these warnings, the government should have been fully expecting an attack. Likewise, they should have planned for an attack as well as do everything in their power to prevent danger from impending. The government could have easily looked far more thoroughly into these warnings. With the power and abilities the United States government holds, these attacks should have easily been prevented. A final warning in a news article explains, "The memo received by Bush on 6 August contained unconfirmed information passed on by British intelligence in 1998 revealing that al-Qaeda operatives had discussed hijacking a plane to negotiate the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the Muslim cleric imprisoned in America for his part in a plot to blow up the World Trade Centre in 1993" (Burke, and Vulliamy). This warning was by no means vague, it contained information on exactly what type of attack al-Qaeda planned to carry out. The information given to George W. Bush provided him with direct evidence that al-Qaeda planned to hijack a plane, quite possibly to damage the World Trade Center. How much clearer of evidence could the government have received about this matter? Yet, even with all of this evidence, they still did not act enough to protect our country like they very well could have done. Instead of enforcing high levels of airport security, like there is today, they simply didn't react to this warning. If the government had placed plans and protection against this specific type of attack, it may have never happened. The thought is an extremely unsettling idea. Why would a government with such power, not act upon warnings that had the potential to be so destructive towards their country?

            The role of a government is to protect its country from any foreign or homeland attacks. There have been attacks in history, such as Pearl Harbor, in which the government was almost totally blindsided. However, the attacks on America during 9/11 were completed foreseen by the government; the administration just did not choose to take the signs and warnings seriously. Dick Cheney was correct when he said that his administration protected our country for the following seven and a half years after 9/11. They enforced incredible protection to make sure another attack would never be allowed to happen. Unfortunately, his defense does not explain or excuse their actions before 9/11; the numerous warnings they received regarding a possible attack that they chose not to act upon. If our government had, in fact, provided the protection they so often promise, 9/11 would not be the disastrously historical day it is for our country today. The nearly three thousand casualties lost that day could quite possibly still have their lives. In addition the war we still continue to fight in the Middle East may not have been so long and treacherous. The actions of the United States government prior to, and during, the 9/11 attacks provide a discomfort for many Americans. Will we be fully protected if threatened with another attack, or will the government simply disregard any warnings and allow our country to become crippled once again?

Works Cited

LeeH., H., and K. ThomasH. Without precedent: The inside story of the 9/11 commission. New York, NY: Random House Inc., 2006. Print.

The 9/11 commission report, final report of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the united states. 1. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004. Print.

Griffin, David Ray, and Peter Dale Scott. 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Volume 1. Northhampton, MA: Olive Branch, 2007. Print.

Burke, Jason, and Ed Vulliamy. "Bush Knew of Terrorist Plot to Hijack US Planes." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 18 May 2002. Web. 05 Feb. 2013.

Ward, Jon. "EXCLUSIVE: Cheney Defends War on Terror's Morality." The Washingtion Times. N.p., 18 Dec. 2008. Web. 06 Feb. 2013.

Griffin, David Ray. "The Destruction of the World Trade Center:Why the Official Account Cannot Be True." The Destruction of the World Trade Center:. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2013.

5 possible argument topics

1. Concussions in football do lead to mental health issues in later life
2. 9/11: U.S. government had foreknowledge of the attacks and were very possibly involved in the attack
3. America's healthcare system doesn't have enough staffing, primarily nurses, to run efficiently 
4. While graduating from college should be beneficial, the cost of student loans puts a burden on most futures; financial aid program should be stronger or college cheaper
5. The cost of organic/healthy foods should be substantially lowered to solve many of our countries obesity issues