12.1
1.) The name of the tank tops "wife beaters" is an issue because it carries a strong connotation an stereotype to those who wear them.
2.) the three problems with the definition are that it suggests a man beating his wife, in fashion male dominance where men beat their wives should not be present, and the term should portray flattery not violence.
3.) These definitions were put in the essay to provide strong factual evidence for their argument. The author's definition is different because she defines it as a skinny0ribbed white T-shirts that can be worn under another shirt or alone rather than a tank that abusive individuals wear..
4.) the objection to the definition would be that it means a t-shirt worn by abusive individuals however, I do think that she states her argument that this is bad name very convincingly.
5.)I believe that an image like this could be helpful to her because it shows a good looking model wearing the tank top rather than an abusive husband.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Assignment #2
2.1
1.) Because he was sheltered and was not allowed to enter certain elements of pop culture, he lacked an outlet for his true feelings and desires.
2.) He argues that a particular character eventually was able to "free" him and that the character was good for him because of the violence.
3.)He says that it does teach some children ways of violence, however, it has taught many more how to deal with the feelings they feel.
4.)By telling children violence and rage is bad, we confuse them about their own feelings. In other words, parents should not make children fear their feelings by telling them they are wrong.
2.8
According to Gerard Jone's , violent media can actually have positive effects on young people because it teaches them how to face their negative feelings and deal with them. jones also believes that violent media are a positive influence on children because it shows children that they should not be afraid to feel their emotions. Jones makes some good points. For example, he says that he consults to public schools and also raises a daughter, therefore he has the knowledge and is a reliable source. However, we must keep in mind that violence can be damaging to a child in some cases. All in all, Jones does have a strong argument on this issue and I think he backs it up very well with great evidence.
1.) Because he was sheltered and was not allowed to enter certain elements of pop culture, he lacked an outlet for his true feelings and desires.
2.) He argues that a particular character eventually was able to "free" him and that the character was good for him because of the violence.
3.)He says that it does teach some children ways of violence, however, it has taught many more how to deal with the feelings they feel.
4.)By telling children violence and rage is bad, we confuse them about their own feelings. In other words, parents should not make children fear their feelings by telling them they are wrong.
2.8
According to Gerard Jone's , violent media can actually have positive effects on young people because it teaches them how to face their negative feelings and deal with them. jones also believes that violent media are a positive influence on children because it shows children that they should not be afraid to feel their emotions. Jones makes some good points. For example, he says that he consults to public schools and also raises a daughter, therefore he has the knowledge and is a reliable source. However, we must keep in mind that violence can be damaging to a child in some cases. All in all, Jones does have a strong argument on this issue and I think he backs it up very well with great evidence.
Assignment #1
"In Praise of Tap Water" New York Times
1.) People should should take into consideration more the cost and the impact on the environment before making the decision to drink bottled water.
2.) The arguments used in the first three paragraphs of this article are that drinking bottled water is more expensive than drinking tap, bottled water is bad for the environment, and it is actually not much healthier than tap water.
3.) "The real change, though, will come when millions of ordinary consumers realize that they can save money, and save money, and save the planet, by turning in their water bottles and turning on the tap."
4.) I feel as though the author could have had a stronger counter argument. He could have said it its more convenient in our busy lives to just grab a bottle of water. He could have then come back with the argument that reusable bottles could be purchased. He also could have used the argument that tap water isn't as clean as bottled water but them argued that tap water could be filtered before drinking.
5.) The purpose of this argument is to show that people of importance are on the author's side therefore the reader should be as well. Also it serves the purpose of showing the author's proposal is very doable and reasonable.
"Poland Spring Water" Polandspring.com
1.) Although 100% recyclable, the plastic still does a lot of damage to the environment and tap water does not leave any plastic behind.
2.) Tap water has no labels and uses up no resources.
3.) Again, tap water uses 0% of the plastic previously used.
4.) Tap water can also be easy to carry if put into reusable bottles.
5.) With reusable water bottles, recycling is even easier!
"Pure Water 2Go" Purewater.com
The argument being made here is that, although bottled water seems convenient at the time, it adds up. the picture is saying that even though it seems like a great alternative to tap water and is very recyclable, it only adds up to a giant pile of waste.
1.) People should should take into consideration more the cost and the impact on the environment before making the decision to drink bottled water.
2.) The arguments used in the first three paragraphs of this article are that drinking bottled water is more expensive than drinking tap, bottled water is bad for the environment, and it is actually not much healthier than tap water.
3.) "The real change, though, will come when millions of ordinary consumers realize that they can save money, and save money, and save the planet, by turning in their water bottles and turning on the tap."
4.) I feel as though the author could have had a stronger counter argument. He could have said it its more convenient in our busy lives to just grab a bottle of water. He could have then come back with the argument that reusable bottles could be purchased. He also could have used the argument that tap water isn't as clean as bottled water but them argued that tap water could be filtered before drinking.
5.) The purpose of this argument is to show that people of importance are on the author's side therefore the reader should be as well. Also it serves the purpose of showing the author's proposal is very doable and reasonable.
"Poland Spring Water" Polandspring.com
1.) Although 100% recyclable, the plastic still does a lot of damage to the environment and tap water does not leave any plastic behind.
2.) Tap water has no labels and uses up no resources.
3.) Again, tap water uses 0% of the plastic previously used.
4.) Tap water can also be easy to carry if put into reusable bottles.
5.) With reusable water bottles, recycling is even easier!
"Pure Water 2Go" Purewater.com
The argument being made here is that, although bottled water seems convenient at the time, it adds up. the picture is saying that even though it seems like a great alternative to tap water and is very recyclable, it only adds up to a giant pile of waste.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Gun Control, Out of Control; Final Draft
Katelyn Kressler
Engl 102-048
Causal argument essay
29 January 2013
Gun
Control, Out of Control
While
flipping through the channels on television, it is hard not catch a story about
some degree of gun violence. A recent story that really hits home for many
American people of all communities is the Sandy Hook Tragedy in Newtown
Connecticut. On December 14, 2012, twenty students and six staff members were shot
and killed by a twenty year old man named Adam Lanza. Before arriving at the school, he shot and killed his
own mother. The Sandy Hook Elementary students ranged from first grade to
fourth grade. It is absolutely heartbreaking to picture these young innocent
children being murdered for no reason or walking past the dead bodies of their
best friends, classmates, principal, teachers, and school psychologist. Its
heartbreaking to think about the parents and siblings of these children and the
memories those who survived will have to carry with them for the rest of their
lives. Sadly, gun violence and murders are not new problems for America. We have
seen it in cases such as the Virginia Tech Massacre and the Arizona movie
theater shooting. “Only
with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning
is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not. “Too soon,”
howl supporters of loose gun laws. But as others have observed, talking about
how to stop mass shootings in the aftermath of a string of mass shootings isn’t
“too soon.” It’s much too late.” ( “Twelve
Facts about Guns and Mass Shootings in the United States” washingtonpost.com). With this said, laws on gun control should be stricter to ease people of the dangers of being around guns, to slow down the organizations of guns, and to decrease gun violence
in general,
Fig. 1.
A message from pro gun control ("The Week in Polls: Americans
Rally for Stronger Gun Laws." BET.com)
The right to
bear arms has been a part of American society since the beginning. It is in
fact the second amendment in the United States Constitution. From wars, to law
enforcement, to the head of the house being ready to protect their family, guns
are a part of the American culture and always will be. Also seen all throughout American
history are stories of school shootings. “The first reported school shooting happened on July 26,
1764... Only three students survived and of them one had already been partially
scalped” ("The
History of Nearly 250 Years of School Shootings in America."hubpages.com).
With the right to bear arms
there obviously comes those who disagree with it and want to eliminate the
right completely. I personally
believe that that the right should remain, however, revisions should be made to
make sure weapons so not get in the wrong hands and to keep our people safe.
Gun control laws should be stricter in
order to make people less afraid of authority and the weapons authority carries. As things are now, guns have a very negative
connotation. They are seen as tools to murder, harm, and evoke fear in others.
From a young age we are taught that we must stay away from guns and that they
only do bad. However, this is not completely true. Guns, when the correct people possess them, for the correct
reasons can be extremely useful. One example would be military, or law
enforcement in which serve to protect innocent people and keep them out of
harms way. Another example, although not so common anymore, would be people
hunting for food and other resources. Guns can be very helpful great tools for
safety but only if they are used in a safe way. Having more restrictions with
guns will help people become more comfortable with the idea of guns. If
American people are assured that they are safe and no reason to worry about
weapons getting into the wrong hands or that a random tragedy happening, they
will feel more comfortable in the presence of authority that hold weapons to protect
us.
Another
reason laws about gun control should be stricter is that it would help to
decrease the organization of guns including the mob, and smaller gangs. Especially in larger cities, when a
child reaches a certain age they sometimes get in with the wrong crowd and are
introduced to gang life. In my city, people I knew started getting involved
around the age of thirteen. When I was in seventh grade, I heard about a boy,
Marvin, only a year older than me getting killed due to gang and gun involvement.
When one grows up around these kinds of things, it is easy to get sucked into a
dangerous lifestyle that can ruin, if not end, their entire future. Guns should not be in the hands of
those who wish to cause harm never mind the hands of thirteen-year-olds who are
not educated about the effects and circumstances of gun possession. I
personally feel as though guns should not be in the average person’s home. My
opinion is that guns should only be in the hands of law enforcement and
military to make sure these deadly weapons never fall into the wrong hands.
Lastly,
gun control laws should be stricter to end gun violence in general. As of now, the United States has gun
violence records that would put the government to shame. For example, “Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass
murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings
unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii, they found. And in most
cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally” ("Twelve Facts about Guns and Mass
Shootings in the United States." Washingtonpost.com). The fact that in most cases, the
guns used to brutally mass murder innocent people were obtained legally is just
proof that the gun control laws are flawed.
When these
numbers are compared to England’s homicide rates, it is shown that England has one of the lowest homicide
rates in the world. I don’t think that it is just a coincidence that owning a
gun at all in England is against the law. In order to obtain a weapon in the United Kingdom, one must
go through a very long and complicated process. The individual must show good reason for wanting a gun in
their application. “Independent
referees provide confidential character statements in which they are expected
to answer in detail about the applicant's mental state, home life and attitude
towards guns. Officers check the Police National Computer for a criminal record
and they speak to the applicant's GP for evidence of alcoholism, drug abuse or
signs of personality disorder. Social services can also be asked for reasons to
turn down an applicant.”(
"10 Reasons Stricter Gun Regulation Will Be Difficult to Achieve in
America." Thehuffingtonpos.com). The officers then need to see that the individual has a
safe and secure place to keep the gun. Although this is a long and involved
process to accessing a gun, I think it is very necessary. It helps to make sure
the weapons do not under any circumstance fall into the wrong hands and are
never used for bad. Of course no plan is completely fool proof, but I do think
that England is a step in front of the United States when it comes to gun
control laws. If we had stricter laws involving gun control, I do believe that
gun violence would be decreased significantly.
Fig. 2. A comic making fun of
America’s gun control or lack there of. ("Shoot First, Ask Questions Later." Banalleakage.com)
One of
the strongest counter arguments of making gun control laws stricter would be
that ordinary people need guns to protect their homes from danger and it is the
Constitutional right of that person to do so. The second amendment states, “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” ("Bill of Rights Transcript Text." archives.gov). Many American citizens
choose to own a gun strictly because the constitution states that it is their
right and they feel the need to exercise all of their rights.The NRA works hard
to garuntee American’s of their rights, along with alliances such as the NRA
Civil Rights Fund. These organizations see stricter gun control laws as more of
a threat to their constitutional rights rather than a means of protection. (“Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund -
Message from the Chairman." Nradefensefund.org). I would argue that
stricter laws would not be there to take away their right but to make sure no
one abuses the right. If the person wishing to bear arms is psychologically and
physically fit to own a gun, the altered laws would not be a problem. They
would simply be there to make sure every person with a gun has the absolute
best intensions. As far as people being concerned about being able to protect
themselves with their guns, I would have to argue that there is really no need
for the guns. If the laws are stricter there would be less gun violence meaning
less reason to protect a family with a gun. If there ever was a real threat in
a house, the police could be notified because it would be legal for them to
carry guns.
Fig. 3. A message about
the desire to own a gun. (“It
Don't Make Sense: 2nd Amendment For Me, But Not For Thee." itdontmakesense.blogspot.com)
Fig .4. Comparing gun
control laws to dictatorship. ("Political
MoJo." Motherjones.com)
In conclusion I do believe that gun control laws in the United States should be stricter in order to ease people of their fear of weapons and authority, to lessen gun organizations, and lastly to decrease gun violence as a whole. I recognize that The United States would be an extremely difficult country to deny access of guns completely. The country is way too divided for this to work at this time. However, there is no harm in attempting to revise the laws to make the streets and communities we live in a little safer. In my making these laws stricter would increase our safety a very satisfying amount.
In conclusion I do believe that gun control laws in the United States should be stricter in order to ease people of their fear of weapons and authority, to lessen gun organizations, and lastly to decrease gun violence as a whole. I recognize that The United States would be an extremely difficult country to deny access of guns completely. The country is way too divided for this to work at this time. However, there is no harm in attempting to revise the laws to make the streets and communities we live in a little safer. In my making these laws stricter would increase our safety a very satisfying amount.
Works
Cited
"Bill of Rights Transcript
Text." Bill of Rights Transcript
Text. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Feb. 2
2013.
Casciani, Dominic. "Gun Control
and Ownership Laws in the UK." BBC
News. BBC, 11
Feb.
2010. Web. 01 Feb. 2013.
"Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund -
Message from the Chairman." Civil
Rights Legal
Defense
Fund - Message from the Chairman.
N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2013
"The History of Nearly 250 Years
of School Shootings in America." HubPages.
N.p., n.d.
Web.
01 Feb. 2013
"_It Don't Make Sense_: 2nd
Amendment For Me, But Not For Thee." _It Don't Make
Sense_:
2nd Amendment For Me, But Not For Thee. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2013.
Klein, Ezra. "Twelve Facts about
Guns and Mass Shootings in the United States."
Washingtonpost.com. N.p., 14 Dec. 2012. Web. 1 Feb. 2013
"Political MoJo." Mother
Jones. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2013.
"Shoot First, Ask Questions
Later." Banal Leakage. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2013.
Strauss, Steven. "10 Reasons
Stricter Gun Regulation Will Be Difficult to Achieve in
America." The
Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 01 Jan. 2013. Web. 04
Feb. 2013.
"The Week in Polls: Americans
Rally for Stronger Gun Laws."
BET.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)