Mathieu 1

William Mathieu
Composition 1
31 March 2016
Ms. Reed
Good start. See my notes in the margins. The three major things I am concerned about in this
paper are the fact that there is no claim of what you believe should come to pass, there are
several generalizations (see fallacies) in the paper that dont have any evidence to support them,
and all of the reasons provided dont exactly support why your audience should be anti-gun
control. Protecting ones self from crime is one reason, but competitive shooting and hunting
technically can occur in a controlled space. Think about the organization of the paper and make
sure that each of your paragraphs cites a reason that supports your claim once you have an
explicit statement. Keep the information you have here, but spend some time adding more
details, evidence, reasons, and arranging to make the paper more persuasive.
Gun Control is Not the Answer
When I initially began researching came onto this subject at the beginning of the
semester, I was initially undecided regarding on my stance on gun control. After an extensive
amount of research, I decided that my stance towards the subject was that I leaned towards anti-

Commented [PR1]: I moved some things around here to

provide an example of how to state things using fewer
words.

gun control. There are many reasons on why I picked the stance I did. So, I picked the few most
valid argumentative points to discuss throughout my paper.
The first main reason for being against gun control is the fact that it is a constitutional

Commented [PR2]: State your claim right before the final

sentence of this paragraph. What do you believe should
come to pass regarding gun control?

right being infringed upon. Yes, some may say that today's society is much more different than

Commented [PR3]: What evidence do you have? Detail

what the constitution says here and site it as a source.

when the Constitution was written, but the fact of the matter is that its not as different as many

Commented [PR4]: Opposing perspective

would think. The right was initially given to the citizens of the United States as a method to

Commented [PR5]: How so is it similar? According to

what source?

Mathieu 2
create a standing militia to prevent against an oppressive government. But who is to say that that
couldnt happen in todays America today. As well, who isnt to say that guns are no longer
needed in todays society to accomplish the same intention intended by the in Constitution?
todays society dont give a similar purpose?
The purpose Im speaking of is protection, currently, but this protection isnt needed by
Americans to protect themselves from an oppressive government; however, it is needed by.

Commented [PR6]: I understand what you are trying to

accomplish with this section, but take another look at it. It
needs some massaging. I think once you quote the
constitution it will change the way you approach this section.
Commented [PR7]: I would add currently here because
you made a statement above that suggests that anything is
possible.

This protection is for individual citizens who live in a world with danger all around them. In
todays society murder, rape, and various other crimes are all too prevalent. Guns in a lot of
cases absolutely save lives. If guns are banned it will diminish protection for those who might
not be able to protect themselves. Criminals will find ways to gain weapons and commit their

Commented [PR8]: What evidence do you have to support

this statement?

criminal acts regardless of gun control. Cops cannot be everywhere all the time. Protection in a
lot of cases relies on ones self or the help of others in the community to be brave and step up. In

Commented [PR9]: Sources?

no way is this bashing the police force at all, its just simply a fact that it often takes them long
times to arrive at a scene. The average police response time is roughly 10 minutes, and thats to

Commented [PR10]: What statistics do you have to

support this? Does it vary by area? Agency?

say someone called in the heat of the moment. In private encounters in immediate danger thats
too long, even if you are able to get to the phone and make the call, the act has probably already
been committed.
There are more scenarios than not where a citizen acquiring a gun for protection if used
right, is the better option. There are in fact many stories to prove that having citizens with guns
has been a possible life-saving scenario. For instance, A woman being dragged across a Texas
parking lot as she held onto her purse in an apparent mugging attempt was saved when a nearby
stranger, who was carrying a concealed weapon, joined the situation and held the suspects, a
man, and a woman, at gunpoint until police arrived. This is just one of the many examples of a

Commented [PR11]: This is a powerful story, whats the

source?

Mathieu 3
possible life-saving event. He didnt kill the man he simply prevented them from whatever
horrible thing that could have happened to that innocent lady. She couldve been assaulted,
raped, or even murdered. So, the Amendment is no longer meant for its originally applied
purpose, seeing there is no really threatening higher power at this moment. As time has gone by,
the Amendment has developed a new purpose really: protection from dangerous criminals.

Commented [PR12]: Be specific about which Amendment

you are speaking about.

Another main focus on gun control is the possibility of hunters and sportsman having
their guns stripped away from them. This is unfair, both to those who hunt and shoot
competitively. Hunting can be a very important activity that is often times overlooked. This
activity too many is a stress reliever, as well as a way to bond with family and friends. Hunting

Commented [PR13]: These sentences can be combined.

to many is a cheaper, and highly nutritious, way to put food on the table. Hunting is something
that has been around thousands of years and is a very productive activity.
Competitive shooting, on the other hand, is a great activity as well. This allows the
shooter to practice safe and effective shooting. This can be a recreational activity or one that
practices efficient shooting for when hunting. This is a sport that often times has a lot of money

Commented [PR14]: How will this be impacted by gun

control? Guns can be controlled in a shooting range or
designated areas.

spent on it. The higher the competition level usually the more money spent. When starting off
you simply have to have a gun, ammunition, and pay for use of the facility being shot at. At
professional levels, it is often better to shoot a higher dollar gun and use more expensive
ammunition.
Hunting and competitive shooting are both activities that can be either inexpensive or
highly expensive. The possibility of these two activities being stripped from Americans causes
huge economic problems for many both big name and small business that thrive off of the
revenue of selling hunting and outdoors-related sells items. I can think of several chain stores
throughout the country that would be affected by this. Big sporting goods stores like Cabelas,

Commented [PR15]: Generalization without any evidence

Mathieu 4
Bass Pro, and TP Outdoors might still survive due to their ability to have tons of different sells
items such as clothes, motor vehicles, and many other accessories. Although, smaller businesses
that are more local such as Macks Prairie Wings and Simmons Sporting Goods both business in
this state might be more heavily affected.
Since the repercussions of this being passed could not only hurt the business related to
hunting, it could, in turn, affect the economy itself. Its more likely to be affected poorly. This
would strip many people of their jobs, and destroy many local business owners as well as big
business owners. Now this will cause the consumer to most likely have more money to spend
elsewhere, but this still causes many people to lose jobs that could support their families,
themselves, or give them a possibility to get working experience and get a better job in the
future.
Gun control supporters can make many arguments such as: it will reduce a number of
murders, it will reduce a number of assaults and rapes, it will reduce a number of suicides, etc.,
but I say that if someone wants to do something and puts their mind to it, theres really no
stopping them. If you think a school shooter or a murderer isnt going to go through with their
plan because they lack the ability of having a gun youre wrong. These people would find a way
to commit their crime. A murderer is a murderer, the argument that guns kills isnt valid, its the
people behind them. People get murdered by various weapons frequently. Guns protect much
more so than they do harm. You dont see the president go hardly anywhere unless he
surrounded by the secret service, and what do they have on them at all times? A gun.
In essence, to say that our country would be safer without guns is a blatant lie. Many
citizens carry weapons used for protection and use them for activities that are completely nonharmful. So, why take away their freedom because some gang member stole a gun and killed

Mathieu 5
someone with it. Every right given is going to have an upside and a downside, someone is
always going to fight it and try to change it. This is exactly what is happening here with gun
control, it is something that has two very opposing sides that battle frequently over who is right.

After going through extensive amounts of research the side of Anti-Gun control just
seems right. The good outweighs the bad, in nearly every aspect. The argument of the decline of
safety because of guns is obviously trying to spread fear. Were ranked 162nd out of all 218
countries in intentional homicides committed with a firearm. Considering America is third
biggest country due to population that is not nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be.
Statistics can be thrown all around to make them sound scary, but how frequently is it heard that
a friend or family member of yours has been shot or killed? This answer may dramatically vary
due to where you live, grew up, or a lot of different variables. All in all, gun violence would
most likely be replaced by violence of another sort, the argument of crimes rates going down is a
total myth. This is because there is no evidence to it at all, its just a proposed theory that is a
huge side of the gun control argument. So, I say is giving up freedoms and rights given by our
country's constitution worth losing our guns? The answer being no.

Mathieu 6
Citation Page

"Average-Police-Response-Time." Average-Police-Response-Time.
N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.
Guns Save Lives: 12 Stories Cited By Second Amendment
Advocates.Newsmax. N.p., 28 Oct. 2014 Web.06 Mar. 2016.
"Global Study on Homicide." UNODC:. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.

Commented [PR16]: See The Little DK Handbook for

correct formatting of Works Cited entries.