Edwin Moody

English 110

Sam Bellamy

December 8, 2019

Theory of Writing

     Although the style of writing we did over the course of this semester has been different from the work we did in high school, my theory of writing is basically unchanged. To me, writing, or any form of rhetoric, is a device that is used to effectively communicate, conjure up certain emotions in the reader, or prove a point. To attain any of these goals in a piece of writing, I think it is important to be emotionally engaged, and to be interested in the subject matter at hand. To this end, it is important to research the topic fully and become genuinely interested before putting pen to paper. Although all writing styles differ, if any of them lack passion, they become boring and dry.

     In this class, we covered a few different styles of essays, and even explored other genres of rhetoric such as the composition in two genres assignment in which we could choose which way to communicate a point. The main difference between this course and the ones I took in high school is that a lot of the writing we did was based off of research, and had to be written inside of certain confines, whereas in high school we did more creative pieces. Although I much prefer creative writing like a memoir or a short story, this class has been helpful in preparing me for the essays we wrote in other classes, which, in my case, were mostly based on law and government. Although these other papers were about very dry topics, I still found it important to develop an interest and a strong opinion about the research topic.

     In general, when I write a paper, I find it important to pick a topic that I have invested interest in. For this class, we had to write all of our papers about one topic, so it was especially paramount to choose one that would never become old. In my case, I chose gun control, which is important to me because I am both a gun owner, and someone who fervently hopes for an end to gun violence. Because I chose a topic that directly affects me and my rights, I never lost my passion for the topic, even after writing several papers on it.

     For this class, we were encouraged to find a rhetorical situation to analyze. Although each assignment was a bit different, all of them were based on the same rhetorical situation. The next step in the writing process for me is to think of a target audience. In order to make my essays as effective and convincing as possible, we were taught to think of a specific sector of society to write to, and make sure the presentation of the evidence, or the argument was catering to their viewpoint.

       Finally, it is vital to come across as professional, and convincing. Although it is important for me to have my own view, I find it necessary to back my own opinion up with evidence, and statistics. Without logical backup, any theory, or opinion, lacks credibility, and is not effective. In the case of both my source based essay, and my inquiry based research paper, I used arguments from both sides of the discussion, before presenting my own opinion, backed by evidence. For me, this is an easy way to come across as professional, and avoid a one-sided argument.

     In general, in order to do effective research and writing, I try to gain a wealth of prior knowledge, and write passionately about something that I believe in. My theory of writing is that any written piece should effectively convey the desired message, be it an argument, or story or poem. For me, this means that I, as the writer, have to be fully immersed in the subject matter at hand. Although this is difficult as I attempt to balance work and other classes, I find it vital to focus my entire attention on who my audience is, and how I can professionally and effectively reach that audience. The only way I can grip the audience’s attention is to radiate passion through my writing, which is something I try to do every time I put pen to paper.

      

Criminals Kill People.

       Not Guns.

Social programs minimize gun violence by     supporting troubled youth.

Protect your rights by voting in legislation that looks at the real problem.

Edwin Moody

September 13, 2019

Source Based Essay: Gun Co

Edwin Moody

September 13, 2019

Source Based Essay: Gun Control

     As school shootings and other acts of violence pile up, just about everyone in the country has weighed in on how to best stop these acts of terror. One means of controlling violence is to control the use of guns, particularly those that are designed to inflict excessive damage to human flesh. The only thing stopping law makers from taking action in banning these weapons is the Second Amendment, “a well-regulated militia, being necessary for the safety of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Liberal leaners tend to support gun control, or even the abolishment of the Second Amendment, while conservatives tend to look elsewhere for answers. Amidst the nationwide noise that surrounds this hot-button issue, four qualified sources from both sides of the debate give their opinion.

     Although the Democratic and Republicans parties are divided over the gun issue, Henry Cuellar, a Democrat in the state of Texas is a gun owner and proudly supported the Second Amendment. That is until the recent tragedies that took the lives of twenty-nine people in his home state last August. In her article for The New York Times, “A Texas Democrat with the NRA’s ‘A’ Rating. For Now”, Sheryl Stolberg, a reporter, details how the shootings in Cuellar’s locality changed his mind and ultimately led to push for background checks for all gun users.

    She is writing to other Second Amendment supporters who may be skeptical about background checks degrading their right to bear arms. She is able to use the work of Cuellar, a Texan, as well as straightforward language to create a tone that makes the article both relatable and easily readable. For example, in her opening paragraph she describes Cuellar’s background, “In this gun-friendly border city, where Tuesdays are “ladies’ nights” at the shooting range and pistols in hip holsters are a common sight, Representative Henry Cuellar is a proud defender of the Second Amendment” (Stolberg 1). For right-wing gun users this description gives an idea of some of the people who want to restrict gun use.

     The genre in this article is a newspaper opinion piece. She does a good job backing up the points she makes by citing quotes from fellow experts who have similarly strong opinions about gun control.

     The overall purpose of the essay is to sway the opinion of conservative gun owners to the point that they accept background checks as a necessary precaution rather than a threat to their rights. Stolberg cleverly uses a Texas native and gun user as a medium to reach Second Amendment supporters and sway the general public towards gun control.

    Conversely, Patrick Krey a writer for The New American, sees the recent discussion as a threat to American’s rights, which in turn could potentially compromise other foundational rights we have as Americans. In his article, “Big Tech Threatens the Second Amendment”, he points out that certain tech companies have hindered the rights of gun makers by refusing to let them advertise their products through their software. According to Krey, the efforts by mega-companies such as Google, Twitter, and Facebook have limited gun makers to the point where, “It makes it impossible to function of the Internet at all” (Krey 1).

     The reason Krey wrote the article is that he felt Americans who are concerned over the recent attacks on the Second Amendment needed to know of a new battle ground on this issue; the one that takes place over cyberspace, “firms with an oversized market presence been unilaterally banning the accounts of conservatives in an ongoing war on free speech” (Krey 1). This gives a new perspective not only on the gun control issue, but on the First Amendment as well.

     The tone he uses in this article is one of warning. He fears that if this issue grows any bigger, the average American could lose his or her right to carry a gun simply because no one makes them, “supporters of the Second Amendment need to be extremely concerned that our enemies are intent on taking our guns by any means necessary” (1). He makes it clear through the tone in his writing that this is not an issue to be taken lightly.

     This article is effective because of the language selected by the author. Although he was writing to a blue collar, conservative audience, he validates his statements by citing examples of this in the recent past. The most notable among these being Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce. He has used his platform to vent his obvious opposition to gun control. This has taken the form of speaking sharply against gun owners, as well as making sizable donations toward the eventual ban of assault weapons. This is an effective way to make an opinion piece convincing.

     Anti-gun control specialist Don B. Kates weighs in on the debate. In his blog for the Independent Institute, he supports an answer to domestic terrorism that was first conceived in Israel. He maintains that if the government took guns away from people it would create “gun free zones” that have been proven to attract violent shooters because of the potential lack of resistance. Instead, he points to a model that Israel used after multiple attacks in schools. In their case, the country armed teachers and bus drivers, who in turn thwarted several terrorist attacks. Apparently, the method seems to work, “many instances…show that, unlike gun free zones, Israeli policy works. Thousands of Israeli civilians armed to guard against terrorist attack have halted such attacks by killing the terrorists” (Kates 1).  He believes that if the government armed teachers, America could solve its problem with school shootings.

     Kates, a constitution and civil liberties lawyer, is writing to a diverse audience with this blog. He is not only making a stand against gun control, but also trying to come up with a viable plan for the future of the country. He implores people of any political background to rethink their stance on the gun control issue.

     Through passionate language, he is able to express his concern not only about the problem America has with violence in schools, but about the direction the country seems to be headed in trying to fix it. He considers his plan a viable alternative to “other steps which just waste time and money in order to create a false sense of security” (Kates 1).

     In order to prove his points, Kates cites specific examples of armed teachers and civilians who saved the lives of others by stopping acts of terror before they happened.

     What makes this blog convincing is that Kates addresses an issue that is central to modern politics, and brought forward a viable plan to fix it. Through passionate rhetoric, he is able to create a sense of urgency, which is what the country needs on this issue.

     Finally, Saul Cornell, a PhD and director of the Second Amendment research center at John Glenn Institute, supports gun control as a measure that has been necessary since the founding of the nation. In his article for The American Public Health Association, he discusses the historical context of the gun control discussion going back to the time when the Bill of Rights were written.

     In this academic essay, Cornell is writing to a well-educated audience concerned that the Second Amendment be left alone. He argues that, historically, the use of firearms in the USA has been happening since before the Amendment was even conceived. In his own words, “as long as there have been guns in America, there have been firearm regulations.” (Cornell 1). He cites specific laws banning certain weapons in America dating back to the regulations set by the King of England. He argues that creating stricter gun control laws would not be going against the Second Amendment, but rather continuing a tradition of keeping people safe that began before the Amendment itself. Cornell is trying to encourage gun control efforts by presenting the legal history to the entire debate. This is an effective method because it is a side of the argument that much of the general population of America never gets to hear. He legitimizes his points not only through his degree, but also through the authoritative tone in his writing.

     All four of these people, even though they are arguing against each other, effectively brought their point across. The gun control issue is definitely a real life rhetorical situation with just about everyone chiming in. However, these qualified individuals have separated themselves through an accurate presentation of the facts, and the ability to create a tone which draws the reader in.

Works Cited

Stolberg, Sheryl. “A Democrat with the NRA’s ‘A’ Rating for Now.” The New York Times 09 September 2007.

Krey, Patrick. “Big Tech Threatens the Second Amendment”.  The New American,

Kates, Don B. “Gun Free Zones, a Prevalent Delusion”. Independent Institute. 14 May, 2013.

Cornell, Saul. “The Second Amendment and Firearms Regulation”. American Health Association.

ntrol

Welcome to CUNY Academic Commons. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!