Essay Selection: Reference from two of the following:Molly Ivins – Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns – HandoutBrawer – Say no to concealed carry on campus – HandoutHammer – No good reason to deny campus carry – Handout Assignment: Students will compose a three page (research) paper continuing of the Molly Ivins reading that we completed last week. (Please Choose ONE of the following prompts to write on) Prompts: Is the second amendment an antiquated provision that should be done away with? Or should additional amendments be added to the constitution to clarify and limit gun rights in the United States?Should America follow the example of other countries (such as Australia and Britain) and just ban all guns? Instructions: Use the Ivins essay that was posted on Canvas and at least two sources from the other articles to support your research. Make sure that your paper has: A clear, concise, and defined thesis statement that occurs in the first portion of the essay.Clear and logical transitions between the introduction, body, and conclusion.Body paragraphs that include evidential support.Evidential support (whether factual, logical, statistical, or anecdotal).A conclusion that does not simply restate the thesis, but readdresses it in light of the evidence provided. WHEN TYPING YOUR PAPER, PLEASE BE SURE TO DOUBLE–SPACE AND TO USE THE STANDARD 12-POINT FONT IN EITHER Times New Roman or Calibri. FOLLOW MLA RESEARCH GUIDELINES. Be sure to also INCLUDE A WORKS CITED!!!!
ivins_essay___get_a_knife.doc
brawer___hammer_campus_carry.pdf
paper_1_prompt_and_guidelines.doc
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns
By Molly Ivins
Guns. Everywhere guns.
Consider the merits of the knife.
In the first place, you have catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of
knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We’d turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus,
knives don’t ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives.
As a civil libertarian, I of course support the Second Amendment. And I believe it means exactly
what it says: “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.” Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a wellregulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated militia. Permitting
unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state.
I am intrigued by the arguments of those who claim to follow the judicial doctrine of original intent.
How do they know it was the dearest wish of Thomas Jefferson’s heart that teen-age drug dealers
should cruise the cities of this nation perforating their fellow citizens with assault rifles? Channeling?
There is more hooey spread about the Second Amendment. It says quite clearly that guns are for
those who form part of a well-regulated militia, i.e., the armed forces including the National Guard. The
reasons for keeping them away from everyone else get clearer by the day.
The comparison most often used is that of the automobile, another lethal object that is regularly
used to wreak great carnage. Obviously, this society is full of people who haven’t got enough common
sense to use an automobile properly. But we haven’t outlawed cars yet.
We do, however, license them and their owners, restrict their use to presumably sane and sober
adults and keep track of who sells them to whom. At a minimum, we should do the same with guns.
In truth, there is no rational argument for guns in this society. This is no longer a frontier nation in
which people hunt their own food. It is a crowded, overwhelmingly urban country in which letting
people have access to guns is a continuing disaster. Those who want guns — whether for target shooting,
hunting or potting rattlesnakes (get a hoe) — should be subject to the same restrictions placed on gun
owners in England – a nation in which liberty has survived nicely without an armed populace.
The argument that “guns don’t kill people” is patent nonsense. Anyone who has ever worked in a
cop shop knows how many family arguments end in murder because there was a gun in the house. Did
the gun kill someone? No. But if there had been no gun, no one would have died. At least not without a
good footrace first. Guns do kill. Unlike cars, that is all they do.
“A well-regulated militia” surely implies both long training and long discipline. That is the least, the
very least, that should be required of those who are permitted to have guns, because a gun is literally
the power to kill. For years, I used to enjoy taunting my gun-nut friends about their psycho-sexual hangups — always in a spirit of good cheer, you understand. But letting the noisy minority in the National
Rifle Association force us to allow this carnage to continue is just plain insane.
I do think gun nuts have a power hang-up. I don’t know what is missing in their psyches that they
need to feel they have to power to kill. But no sane society would allow this to continue.
Ban the damn things. Ban them all.
You want protection? Get a dog.
Brawer: Say no to concealed carry on campus
http://www.tallahassee.com/story/opinion/2015/02/28/brawer-sa…
Brawer: Say no to concealed carry on campus
Michael P. Brawer, My View
12:07 a.m. EST February 28, 2015
Our state colleges and universities are run by some of the smartest people I have ever known. They are liberal,
conservative, moderate, progressive, right, left and every stripe in between. It is an insult to characterize every
higher educator as an unabashed liberal.
As a group of really smart people, one might conclude if allowing people to carry concealed weapons on our
campuses is a good idea, after 220 plus years of public higher education in America, it would be a fait
accompli.
Forbes Magazine, a conservative business publication, states in a Feb. 21, 2013 article: “Colleges and
universities are far safer than most public spaces in the United States. The campus homicide rate is about 1
death per 1 million people, compared to 57 deaths per million in the general population. In the college-age
population in general, moreover, homicide is the second leading cause of death, while on college campuses it
remains a rare event.”
That article also cites a statement from a former provost at Idaho State University to the Chronicle of Higher Education that, “there is no recorded incident
in which a victim or spectator of a violent crime on a campus has prevented that crime by brandishing a weapon.” The Chronicle also quotes Regina G.
Lawson, chief of police at Wake Forest University, who said at a 2008 conference on higher-education law, “When you’re responding to a situation like
that, and someone’s in plain clothes with a gun, who’s the bad guy? Who are you going to take out to save the lives of the 10,000 other students you’re
trying to protect?”
The Florida gun lobby wants you to believe the cops do this every day and can easily determine the bad guys with the guns from the good guys with
guns. Forbes also stated Time magazine reported in January 2013 that in gunfights, New York City police hit their target only 18 percent of the time. The
average student, professor or staff member carrying a weapon is likely to be far less accurate, substantially raising the odds of more innocent victims.
The Florida gun lobby has made no fact-based argument. Citing constitutional rights is the most common. Fear mongering by playing to women about the
possibility of warding off sexual predators is just that — fear mongering. Making the assumption that thousands of college-aged women are going to get
concealed carry permits and purchase a Saturday Night Special to ward off potential rapists is simply absurd. Is this the type of campus we want? The
culture of fear? I find it hard to accept as an American value.
We have tens of thousands of college and university employees, and over a million students who are very frightened about the prospect of gun-toting
students sitting in their classrooms or in their offices, the bookstore, the library, the gym, the dorm, etc.
The Forbes article suggests letting colleges and universities decide their own gun policies for their campuses. I am reluctant to even go that far. Leave
well-enough alone. In my sector, the voices are loud and clear. Colleges and universities are for teaching, learning, free thought, research and student
growth.
Say no to concealed weapons carry on our college and university campuses.
Michael P. Brawer is the CEO and executive director of the Association of Florida Colleges, with a membership of 7520 employees of Florida’s 28 public
state and community colleges.
Read or Share this story: http://on.tdo.com/1AkzrE5
1 of 2
4/7/15 11:50 AM
Marion Hammer: No good reason to deny campus carry
http://www.tallahassee.com/story/opinion/2015/02/23/marion-…
Marion Hammer: No good reason to deny campus carry
Marion P. Hammer, My View
1:13 p.m. EST February 23, 2015
At the Florida Senate Criminal Justice Committee meeting on Feb. 16, we saw a parade of college and
university professors attempting to lobby the committee without facts, without reason and without decorum.
One college professor even stood in the back of the room and screamed at the committee chairman. One
cannot help being appalled that those who refuse to engage in civil discourse and who behave with such
disrespect are teaching impressionable students.
In the absence of evidence to support their position, opponents of campus carry presented opinions. Their
primary message was that Florida’s college and university administrators and their faculty union were all
against campus carry.
Collective opposition doesn’t make them right. It is the same tactic they used in trying to keep Senator John
Thrasher from becoming president of FSU. They attacked an honorable statesman and scholar because he didn’t fit their ideal of a liberal college
administrator.
These are the same state universities that use their failure to stop underage drinking on campuses as an excuse to prohibit self-defense by law-abiding
gun owners. The rantings of a professor claiming that since firearms aren’t allowed in bars, the constitutional right to carry guns for protection should be
banned on campus because “on Friday night a college campus is the biggest bar in town” is a damning indictment of the failures of the state university
system.
Alcohol and drugs are prohibited on campuses. Underage drinking by those under 21 is illegal. Illicit drug use is a violation of law for any age group
anywhere. State university officials need to protect students from this illegal activity, not turn a blind eye to it.
It is a fact that college campuses in Florida are gun-free zones where murderers, rapists and other violent criminals can commit their crimes without fear
of being harmed by their victims.
Studies by nationally recognized experts, including Dr. Gary Kleck — a criminologist and researcher from FSU — show that crime among people who
carry guns for self-defense is almost nonexistent. States that allow firearms to be carried on campus have not seen a rise in crimes committed with
firearms.
Those who say police have done an adequate job of responding to campus shootings must also acknowledge that police do the best job they can, but
they are not there when the attack occurs. Police can’t stop the crime — only the victim has a chance to actually stop it.
Further, claiming that police won’t be able to tell a good guy with a gun from a bad guy with a gun is just nonsense. They do that every day, in every
jurisdiction and state in our nation.
The fact is there is no legitimate reason to deny adults, 21 years or age or older, who are licensed by the state to carry firearms for protection, the right to
continue to carry when they step on a college campus. These license holders have no criminal record, no record of mental illness, no record of alcohol or
drug abuse and have had training in the safe use of a firearm.
Simply not liking guns, not trusting students and not respecting the constitutional rights of others is not a legitimate reason to prohibit fundamental
freedoms.
Marion P. Hammer is the past president of the National Rifle Association.
Read or Share this story: http://on.tdo.com/1EIULYd
1 of 3
4/7/15 11:50 AM
Paper 1:
Essay Selection:
1. Reference from two of the following:
a. Molly Ivins – Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns – Handout
b. Brawer – Say no to concealed carry on campus – Handout
c. Hammer – No good reason to deny campus carry – Handout
Research Essay:
A research paper is the culmination and final product of an involved process of research,
critical thinking, source evaluation, organization, and composition.
Assignment:
Students will compose a three page (research) paper continuing of the Molly Ivins
reading that we completed last week.
(Please Choose ONE of the following prompts to write on)
Prompts:
1. Is the second amendment an antiquated provision that should be done away with?
Or should additional amendments be added to the constitution to clarify and limit
gun rights in the United States?
2. Should America follow the example of other countries (such as Australia and
Britain) and just ban all guns?
Instructions:
Use the Ivins essay that was posted on Canvas and at least two sources from the other
articles to support your research. Make sure that your paper has:
• A clear, concise, and defined thesis statement that occurs in the first portion of the
essay.
• Clear and logical transitions between the introduction, body, and conclusion.
• Body paragraphs that include evidential support.
• Evidential support (whether factual, logical, statistical, or anecdotal).
• A conclusion that does not simply restate the thesis, but readdresses it in light of
the evidence provided.
Due Date:
When typing your paper, please be sure to double-space and to use the standard 12-point
font in either Times New Roman or Calibri. Follow MLA research guidelines. Be sure to
also include a Works Cited.
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
