Need help proofreading an article for my school paper

[trickyasafox]

Hi all- sorry to throw this up short notice- but i need everyone's help

My school just ran an article called - gun control is out of control- and i had to respond. The article is not avail online, but it's basically a summary of brady meets hillary meets gun grabbing whoever.

I pulled most of my facts from Gunfacts, but if any are inaccurate please feel free to correct me. thanks again


here is my response:

A Response to: 'Gun Control is Out of Control'

This is my fifth year at Fordham University, and I must say in all my time here this article has far and away gotten the biggest rise out of me. Before I go any further, I need to make several statements that come from an 'alternative' view of the other author.

First- A little about me. I completed my undergraduate work at Fordham this past spring, and have continued on in our magnificent little community for my masters. I am also a card carrying NRA member, and have been for a long time. I have been raised around firearms my whole life, and have been taught to respect them for what they are; tools. Firearms represent tools that can protect lives. I own a plethora of handguns, last count I was well over a dozen; and that number says nothing of my long guns. I own Glocks, AR-15s (note the plurals are intentional) SKSs', and numerous others. NONE of my firearms have ever been used against another human being. Not a single one.

Next, I think actually citing the Second Amendment is in order. According to the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment reads: “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.” Why the previous author omitted nearly a third of the amendment, namely the part that actually referenced the people, I can only speculate.

The author of 'Gun Control is Out of Control' also states that 20 of the 22 nations gun laws are not enforced. I can't dispute that for one important reason; because it is an inaccurate statement. In the United States, there are over 20,000 different firearm laws on the books. If one were to selectively cherry pick 22 carefully, perhaps 20 could be found that have lax enforcement.

The other Author goes on to say, “ 8 children each day die as a result of guns.” I believe this statistic came from the greenguy- an ethics blogger online. At least thats where I first found this statistic. Color me skeptical, but I'm going to take the US Governments opinion on the matter. The Government stated that 1.7 Children die everyday as a result of firearms. If one excludes suicides, that number drops to 1.3, or about 475 children per year.

So where did this other statistic come from? 8 people per day does sound high. . . OH YES now I remember this study. It was conducted in the early 1990s in an effort to pass more anti-gun legislation. It originally stated 13 people per day, but has been updated and reduced to show the falling murder rates in the US. They defined child as any person up to and including 20 years old. Over half those deaths reported occurred in the 17-20 year old demographic. Furthermore, the majority of which were committed during a felony or other acts of illegal gang violence. That all being said, 475 kids a year is a lot, and we as a society should do everything we can to save as many people as possible. Lets look at what else we can do to save kids. The US Government reports that 13 teenagers die everyday from car accidents, 7 of which occur while the teen is driving, perhaps the US, as a society, could stop cars from driving 1 day out of about every 8. That would save more kids than removing every firearm in the country. Perhaps that is asking too much. Lets look at alcohol, thats already illegal for teens, so maybe some work can be done there. Drunk driving causes 1,500 deaths per year in the teenage demographic; and a further 300 accidents, like burning, drowning, and other tragedies resulting in death, occur with alcohol labeled as the direct cause.

For the sake of space, I'll touch on 1 more point and make my closing remarks. The previous Author cited a number of different nations with populations roughly totaling that of the United States. He cites Japan, Sweden, France, Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, and Australia. Five of those nations are on the top 10 for highest Standard of Living and Highest income, and the other 3 are in the top 18. Of those, 4 rank higher than the US, and those 4 constitute over 2/3rds of the total population of the US. Of the 4 nations that rank higher than the United States, private ownership of firearms drifts between just over 9% and well over 22%. This would lead me to wonder if maybe it is less of a factor of inanimate objects [guns] causing crime, and more the quality of life for people. If I picked 8 nations 'at random' and picked some of the poorest countries in the world instead of the richest, I'm sure we'd see a very different distribution in murder rate per capita.

According to the National Crime Victimization survey of 2000, an estimated 2.5 million crimes are prevented every year by the presence of firearms; or about 7,000 crimes per day. Of those 7,000 crimes per day, 1,100 are attempted murders and 550 are attempted rapes. In the same study 60% of felons surveyed said they have or would avoid attempting to commit a criminal act against an armed citizen.

Finally one last look at the effectiveness of Gun-banning. It is ILLEGAL to own a firearm in Washington DC. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, go directly to jail, Illegal. The murder rate in Washington DC is 56.9 people per 100,000 citizens. Across the river in Arlington- a more affluent area that has NO such ban on firearms- the murder rate is 1.6 persons per 100,000 citizens.

So I guess if people want to play a numbers game with firearms, getting rid of them is a pretty poor choice. They seem to be a contributing factor in keeping people safe. Maybe we should worry more about upping the standard of living in the US- which seems to have the greatest impact on violence, then worrying about guns? As for the statement about VT. That was a tragedy. A tragedy in a GUN FREE ZONE. Imagine if one armed citizen- a professor, or a student, had been able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Maybe some of those 32 families wouldn't be weeping right now, and maybe they would- but at least they would have had a chance.

 

[nhhillbilly]

It looked reasonable to me.

 

[baz]

Is this invited, and you are assured of publication? Or is this a submission that you hope will be published. The reason for asking is that if it is the latter, I think it would stand a better chance if edited substantially. A rule I use when writing myself, and when editing what others have written is to keep asking "Can I say what I've just said using fewer words?"

Here's a simple example. You wrote:

This is my fifth year at Fordham University, and I must say in all my time here this article has far and away gotten the biggest rise out of me.

The same thing, using substantially fewer words:

In five years at Fordham University no other article has incensed me more.

Even this can be improved by putting it in the active voice:

In five years at Fordham University this article incensed me like no other.

Either way, in 13 words I said the same thing you took 30 to say. If you are assured of publication, then you may lack incentive to edit yourself and tighten up your prose. But if you have to get this past an editor, you have a lot of work to do. I'm not trying to be critical, except in a constructive way. An editor will look at this and see it as "wordy" in a way that detracts from your message. If publication depends on the quality of what you've written, you need to write it at least five times, asking yourself the same question after each draft: Can I say what I just said using fewer words? Do that, and as the prose tightens up, and you get rid of verbose and flowery expressions (like the two I cut out in the first sentence -- "I must say" and "far and away") the facts and arguments you are making will take center stage. For now, they are buried in some very wordy writing.

 

[elrod]

Excellent piece........as far as proofing, the only thing I see is....

prehaps the US, as a society, could stop cars from driving 1 day out of about every 8.

Would this sound better?

prehaps the US, as a society, could stop teenagers from driving one day of each week.

That is my only suggestion for the entire article. It is a well thought out, articulated piece and a very good presentation for our side. Again, good work. Let us know what happens.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

1) I would re-check the homicide rate stats you cite for Arlington, VA. 1.6 per 100K sounds awful low to me. I would expect it to be closer to 5 or 10 per 100K - still far below DC of course.

2) As for 2.5 million crimes per year prevented by people using guns in self defense, I thought that statistic came from Gary Kleck of the University of So. Florida. My recollection is that the National Crime victimization Survey stats are in the range of a few hundred thousand crimes prevented - still a big number. Also, much more recent data than for 2000 must be available.

I've seen numbers ranging from a low of 70,000 up to 2.5 million quoted for this statistic. Your paper would have more credibility if it acknowledged this range rather than quoting only the highest estimate.

No matter how you slice it, a HUGE amount of crime is stopped each year by law-abiding citizens using guns in lawful self defense.

Overall, I'd say you have done a good job.

 

[4v50 Gary]

At a glance, here's some suggestions...

Make things as concise as possible and remember that brevity is an excellent intellectual exercise. This is what I redrafted at first pass:

A Response to: 'Gun Control is Out of Control'

In my five years at Fordham University, this article has far and away gotten the biggest rise out of me and I’d like to offer an alternative view.

First- As a graduateof Fordham pursuing my masters here, I am a long time NRA member who has been been raised around firearms and taught to respect them for what they are-tools. As tools, they protect lives and the majority of them have never been used against another human being.

(Cite the name here) states that twenty of the twenty-two nations gun laws are not enforced. I can't dispute that for one important reason; because it is an inaccurate statement. There are over 20,000 different firearm laws in the United States and if one were to selectively cherry pick twenty-two carefully, perhaps twenty could be found that have lax enforcement.

(Cite the name here) says, “8 children each day die as a result of guns.” This statistic is attributable to greenguy- an ethics blogger online. At least thats where I first found this statistic. According to the US Government (cite department), 1.7 Children die everyday as a result of firearms. If one excludes suicides, that number drops to 1.3, or about 475 children per year. So where did this other statistic come from? Eight people per day does sound high and comes from a study (cite source) conducted in the early 1990s in an effort to pass more anti-gun legislation. It originally stated thirteen people per day, but has been updated and reduced to show the falling murder rates in the US. The statisticians deceptively defined child as any person up to and including twenty years old so as to include over fifty percent of those that ocurred in the seventeen to twenty year old age group. It ignores that the majority of these deaths were during the commission of a felony or gang related. Given that 475 kids a year is a lot, we as a society should do everything we can to save as many as possible. Four hundred and seventy-five pales in comparison to other causes of childhood deaths. The US Government reports that thirteen teenagers die everyday from car accidents, seven of which occur while a teen is operating the motor vehicle. Perhaps the US, as a society, could stop cars from driving one day out of about every week as that would save more lives than removing every firearm in the country. Turning to alcohol which is illegal for teenagers, drunk driving causes fifteen hundred deaths per year in the teenage demographic; and a further three hundred accidents, like burning, drowning, and other tragedies resulting in death, occur with alcohol labeled as the direct cause.

(Cite name) cited a number of different nations with populations roughly totaling that of the United States. He cites Japan, Sweden, France, Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, and Australia. Five of those nations are on the top ten for highest Standard of Living and Highest income, and the remaining are in the top eighteen. Of those, four rank higher than the US, and those four constitute over two-thirds of the total population of the US. Of the four that rank higher than the United States, private ownership of firearms drifts between just over nine percent and well over twenty-two. This would lead me to wonder if maybe it is less of a factor of inanimate objects [guns] causing crime, and more the quality of life for people. If you picked eight nations 'at random' and picked some of the poorest countries in the world instead of the richest, we'd see a very different distribution in murder rate per capita.

According to the National Crime Victimization survey of in 2000, an estimated 2.5 million crimes are prevented every year by the presence of firearms; or about 7,000 crimes per day. Of those 7,000 crimes per day, 1,100 are attempted murders and 550 are attempted rapes. In the same survey sixty felons said they would avoid attempting to commit a crime against an armed citizen.

Finally let’s look at the effectiveness of gun-bans. While handgun pocesssion is ILLEGAL in Washington, DC., the murder rate in Washington DC is 56.9 people per 100,000 citizens. Across the river in Arlington- a more affluent area that has NO such ban on firearms- the murder rate is 1.6 persons per 100,000 citizens.

If (cite the author of the article) wants to reduce criminal violence, getting rid of firearms is a pretty poor choice as firearms are contributing factor in public safety. Alternatively, shouldn’t we work towards improving the standard of living-which seems to have the greatest impact on violence, than worrying about guns? As for the statement about Virginia Tech, that tragedy occurred in a GUN FREE ZONE. Imagine if one armed citizen whether a professor or a student had been able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms? It may have been averted had there been an armed citizen who was willing to respond.

 

[BlackBearME]

I agree with the majority: concise will get to the reader. Even if you are assured publication, you'll probably lose half your audience (especially considering every other person in the US is diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, it seems)

THat being said, a few comments:
I agree with post #4. The general rule is for numbers less than 10, spell out the words. Ten or more then use numerals. The exception is if you're starting the sentence with the number (see previous) or in statistics (one point six in 100,000 would look kind of silly)

If you're going to use dashes (and I'm not against them - they have their place, see?) put spaces before and after it - First sentence, paragraph two; second sentence, paragraph five; last sentence, ninth paragraph; third sentence, last paragraph.

4v50 Gary caught it and edited it, but in case you just decide to tweak your own work: Sixth paragraph, the sentence that starts with "The US Government reports" is a runon sentence. It will lose its effectiveness if you separate it, however. I recommend a semicolon instead of the comma between "driving" and "perhaps". This keeps the main thrust of your argument (and cynicism - nicely done, I might add) all in one sentence, but it is no longer a runon.

Finally, I would like to make one more point. Unless you provide enough information for the references and statistical data so the reader can find it on their own, provide references. For example, in the eighth paragraph - I'm sure "National Crime Victimization survey of 2000" can easily be located on the internet. On the other hand, there is no easy way for a reader to verify your claims. I don't know if the other author provided references, but from your tone, I doubt it. If you also fail to provide references, you leave the reader to take your word for it, and hope that one of you isn't making up these number.

All in all, however, well-written, and I hope you get published and bring some attention to the cause. Let us know how it goes!

 

[Odd Job]

Hi Tricky

I will add my two South African cents in the grammar department. My suggestions in red, replacing or modifying the bracketed items in blue. Delete blue and replace with red (or nothing if red doesn't exist).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is my fifth year at Fordham University, and I must say in all my time here this article has far and away gotten the biggest rise out of me. Before I go any further, I need to make several statements that come from an 'alternative' view (of) to the other author.

(First- A little about me.) First - a little about me. I completed my undergraduate work at Fordham this past spring, and have continued on in our magnificent little community for my masters. I am also a card carrying NRA member, and have been for a long time. I have been raised around firearms (my whole life,) and have been taught to respect them for what they (are; ) are: tools. Firearms represent tools that can be used to protect lives. I own a plethora of (handguns,) handguns; (last count I was well over a dozen; ) I have more than a dozen and that number says nothing of my long guns. I own Glocks, AR-15s (note the plurals are intentional) (SKSs') SKSes, and numerous others. NONE of my firearms have ever been used against another human being. Not a single one.

Next, I think actually citing the Second Amendment is in order. According to the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment reads: “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.” Why the previous author omitted nearly a third of the amendment, namely the part that actually referenced the people, I can only speculate.

The author of 'Gun Control is Out of Control' also states that 20 of the 22 nations gun laws are not enforced. I can't dispute that for one important reason; (because) it is an inaccurate statement. In the United States, there are over 20,000 different firearm laws on the books. If one were to selectively cherry pick 22 (carefully,) then perhaps 20 could be found that have lax enforcement.

The other (Author) author goes on to say, “ 8 children each day die as a result of guns.” I believe this statistic came from (the greenguy-) 'the greenguy,' who is an ethics blogger online. At least (thats) that's where I first found this statistic. Color me skeptical, but I'm going to take the US (Governments) government's opinion on the matter. The (Government) government stated that 1.7 (Children) children die everyday as a result of firearms. If one excludes suicides, that number drops to 1.3, or about 475 children per year.

So where did this other statistic come from? 8 people per day does sound high. . . OH YES now I remember this study. It was conducted in the early 1990s in an effort to pass more anti-gun legislation. It originally stated 13 people per day, but has been updated and reduced to show the falling murder rates in the US. They defined child 'child' as any person up to and including 20 years old. Over half those deaths reported occurred in the 17-20 year old demographic. Furthermore, the majority of (which were committed during) these deaths occured during the commission of a felony or other acts of illegal gang violence. That (all) being said, 475 kids a year is a lot, and we as a society should do everything we can to save as many people as possible. Lets look at what else we can do to save kids. The US (Government) government reports that 13 teenagers die everyday from car accidents, 7 of which occur while the teen is (driving, perhaps) driving. Perhaps the US, as a society, (could stop cars from driving) should stop cars from being driven 1 day out of about every 8. That would save more kids than removing every firearm in the country. Perhaps that is asking too much.
(Lets) Let's look at (alcohol, thats) alcohol. It is already illegal for teens, so maybe some work can be done there. Drunk driving causes 1,500 deaths per year in the teenage demographic; and a further 300 (accidents,) accidents like burning, drowning, and other tragedies resulting in (death, occur with alcohol labeled as the direct cause.) death. Alcohol has been implicated in all these incidents.

For the sake of space, I'll touch on (1) one more point and make my closing remarks. The (previous Author) other author cited a number of (different) nations with populations roughly totaling that of the United States. He cites Japan, Sweden, France, Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, and Australia. (Five of those nations are on the top 10 for highest Standard of Living and Highest income,) Of those countries, 5 are in the top 10 in terms of standard of living and income and the other 3 are in the top 18. Of those, 4 rank higher than the US, and those 4 constitute over (2/3rds) 66% of the total population of the US. Of the 4 nations that rank higher than the United States, private ownership of firearms drifts between just over 9% and well over 22%. This (would lead) leads me to wonder (if maybe it is less of a factor of inanimate objects [guns] causing crime, and more the quality) whether inanimate objects such as guns are less of an influence in the rising crime rate than the quality of life for people. If I picked 8 nations 'at random' and picked some of the poorest countries in the world instead of the richest, I'm sure we'd see a very different distribution in murder rate per capita.

According to the National Crime Victimization survey of 2000, an estimated 2.5 million crimes are prevented every year by the presence of (firearms; or about 7,000 crimes per day.) firearms (or about 7,000 crimes per day.) Of those 7,000 crimes per day, 1,100 are attempted murders and 550 are attempted rapes. In the same study 60% of felons surveyed said they have or would avoid attempting to commit a criminal act against an armed citizen.

Finally one last look at the effectiveness of (Gun-banning.) banning guns. It is ILLEGAL to own a firearm in Washington DC. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, go directly to jail, (Illegal.) illegal. The murder rate in Washington DC is 56.9 people per 100,000 citizens. Across the river in (Arlington- a more affluent area that has NO such ban on firearms-) Arlington (a more affluent area that has NO such ban on firearms) the murder rate is 1.6 persons per 100,000 citizens.

So I guess if people want to play a numbers game with firearms, getting rid of them is a pretty poor choice. They seem to be a contributing factor in keeping people safe. Maybe we should worry more about upping the standard of living in the (US- which seems to have the greatest impact on violence, then worrying about guns?) US (which seems to have the greatest impact in reducing violence,) than worrying about guns. As for the statement about (VT. That was a tragedy.) VT: that was a tragedy. A tragedy in a GUN FREE ZONE. Imagine if one armed (citizen- a professor, or a) citizen - a professor or a student, had been able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Maybe some of those 32 families wouldn't be weeping right (now, and maybe they would- but at least they would have had a chance.) now.

 

[trickyasafox]

thank you all soo much. your correct, I am not gurenteed publication and I thank you all for the constructive criticism on tightening up my writing. I'll let you guys know how it goes either way

 

[crebralfix]

Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, go directly to jail, Illegal

Get rid of this; we understand the point made in the sentence before it and the extra emphasis done in this manner does not add to the article.

 

[CajunTim]

Fewer words = better, short an concise. They don't need to know about you, they don't need to know your background or your gun collection.

Say something like: As a law abiding citizen I excercise my second ammendment right to bear arms and take offence to the article 'Gun Control is Out of Control'. The author cites the 2a yada yada yada

Personaly I don't think a school newspaper will publish your rebuttal.

Good luck and let us know how it turns out.

 

[Crow61]

So I guess if people want to play a numbers game with firearms, getting rid of them is in reality a poor choice. Guns seem to be a contributing factor in keeping people safe. Maybe we should worry more about improving the standard of living in the US- which seems to have a greater impact on violence than taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. As for the statement about VT. That was a tragedy. A tragedy in a GUN FREE ZONE. Imagine if one armed citizen- a professor, or a student, had been able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Maybe some of those 32 families wouldn't be weeping right now; or maybe they would. But at least they would have had a chance.



Maybe the last paragragh would read better with the changes that I have in italics.

 

[ConfuseUs]

If you're sending in a letter to the school paper it will need to be substantially shortened. Since it's of article length already I suggest contacting the editors and asking if you can submit an article to rebut the other article. That might save you the hassle of distilling the very essence of your position into 55 words or less. Definitely put the time and effort in to polish whatever you do send in though.

 

[trickyasafox]

just wanted to dig this up and let you guys know i posted unedited from my final draft. I took huge chunks of suggestions from several posters, and got the piece from 1000 words to just under 700 or so

thanks again all!

 

[Henry Bowman]

May we see your final draft? Was it printed?

 

[kludge]

I own Glocks, AR-15s (note the plurals are intentional) SKSs', and numerous others. NONE of my firearms have ever been used against another human being. Not a single one.

Are you absolutely certain that none of your SKS rifles has been used against another human being?

Personally, I would not go into how many and type of firearms I own, however you may be using that as your point... but that's not my point... my point is that perhaps you should restate...

"Even though I own several firearms, I have never used ANY of them against another human being. Nor do I ever want to."

 

[.cheese.]

just out of curiosity, you own all that - in NYC????

 

[Beatnik]

Odd Job did a great job so I won't redo what he did. Here's my contribution.
-----------------------------
A Response to: 'Gun Control is Out of Control'

This is my fifth year at Fordham University, and I must say in all my time here this article has far and away gotten the biggest rise out of me. Before I go any further, I need to make several statements that come from an 'alternative' view of the other author.

First- A little about me. I completed my undergraduate work at Fordham this past spring, and have continued on in our magnificent little community for my masters. I am also a card carrying NRA member, and have been for a long time. I have been raised around firearms my whole life, and have been taught to respect them for what they are; tools. Firearms represent tools that can protect lives. I own a plethora of handguns, last count I was well over a dozen; and that number says nothing of my long guns. I own Glocks, AR-15s (note the plurals are intentional) SKSs', and numerous others. NONE of my firearms have ever been used against another human being. Not a single one.
This italic section could be reworded. Anti's don't know what any of this technical stuff means. They aren't even familiar with our joke terms like 'EBR'.
Also, the point you're trying to make is that the inanimate object doesn't cause the possessor to flip out and go postal: that's not coming across strongly in what you wrote.

Next, I think actually citing the Second Amendment is in order. According to the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment reads: “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.” Why the previous author omitted nearly a third of the amendment, namely the part that actually referenced the people, I can only speculate.
I would reword and drive the point home. Don't speculate, state the fact. You can't quote the entire amendment without leaving out "THE PEOPLE".

The author of 'Gun Control is Out of Control' also states that 20 of the 22 nations gun laws are not enforced. I can't dispute that for one important reason; because it is an inaccurate statement. In the United States, there are over 20,000 different firearm laws on the books. If one were to selectively cherry pick 22 carefully, perhaps 20 could be found that have lax enforcement.

The other Author goes on to say, “ 8 children each day die as a result of guns.” I believe this statistic came from the greenguy- an ethics blogger online. At least thats where I first found this statistic. Color me skeptical, but I'm going to take the US Governments opinion on the matter. The Government stated that 1.7 Children die everyday as a result of firearms. If one excludes suicides, that number drops to 1.3, or about 475 children per year.

So where did this other statistic come from? 8 people per day does sound high. . . OH YES now I remember this study. I would generally try to avoid getting overly familiar with the reader. This isn't a humor piece, it's a fact piece. It was conducted in the early 1990s in an effort to pass more anti-gun legislation. It originally stated 13 people per day, but has been updated and reduced to show the falling murder rates in the US. They defined child as any person up to and including 20 years old. Over half those deaths reported occurred in the 17-20 year old demographic. Furthermore, the majority of which were committed during a felony or other acts of illegal gang violence.

PARAGRAPH BREAK. This is a new point.That all being said, 475 kids a year is a lot, and we as a society should do everything we can to save as many people as possible. Lets look at what else we can do to save kids. The US Government reports that 13 teenagers die everyday from car accidents, 7 of which occur while the teen is driving, perhaps the US, as a society, could stop cars from driving 1 day out of about every 8. That would save more kids than removing every firearm in the country. Perhaps that is asking too much. Lets look at alcohol, thats already illegal for teens, so maybe some work can be done there. Drunk driving causes 1,500 deaths per year in the teenage demographic; and a further 300 accidents, like burning, drowning, and other tragedies resulting in death, occur with alcohol labeled as the direct cause.

For the sake of space, I'll touch on 1 more point and make my closing remarks.Lose this sentence. The previous Author cited a number of different nations with populations roughly totaling that of the United States. He cites Japan, Sweden, France, Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, and Australia. Five of those nations are on the top 10 for highest Standard of Living and Highest income, and the other 3 are in the top 18. Of those, 4 rank higher than the US, and those 4 constitute over 2/3rds of the total population of the US. Of the 4 nations that rank higher than the United States, private ownership of firearms drifts between just over 9% and well over 22%. This would lead me to wonder if maybe it is less of a factor of inanimate objects [guns] causing crime, and more the quality of life for people. If I picked 8 nations 'at random' and picked some of the poorest countries in the world instead of the richest, I'm sure we'd see a very different distribution in murder rate per capita.
I would consider making your points with bullets. This many facts in one paragraph seems like a jumble. It'll read like a political mailer then, but it'll be nice and simple.

According to the National Crime Victimization survey of 2000, an estimated 2.5 million crimes are prevented every year by the presence of firearms; or about 7,000 crimes per day. Of those 7,000 crimes per day, 1,100 are attempted murders and 550 are attempted rapes. In the same study 60% of felons surveyed said they have or would avoid attempting to commit a criminal act against an armed citizen.

Finally one last look at the effectiveness of Gun-banning. It is ILLEGAL to own a firearm in Washington DC. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, go directly to jail, Illegal. The murder rate in Washington DC is 56.9 people per 100,000 citizens. Across the river in Arlington- a more affluent area that has NO such ban on firearms- the murder rate is 1.6 persons per 100,000 citizens.

So I guess if people want to play a numbers game with firearms, getting rid of them is a pretty poor choice. Don't "guess". You just presented facts which should lead the reader to the same conclusion. They seem to be a contributing factor in keeping people safe. Maybe we should worry more about upping the standard of living in the US- which seems to have the greatest impact on violence, then worrying about guns? As for the statement about VT. That was a tragedy. A tragedy in a GUN FREE ZONE. Imagine if one armed citizen- a professor, or a student, had been able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Maybe some of those 32 families wouldn't be weeping right now, and maybe they would- but at least they would have had a chance.
The antis don't think about how the gun free zone failed. They're like communists. The model demonstrably doesn't work, but according to them, it's always a problem with how it was specifically implemented, not the system in and of itself. If I were writing I'd probably mention post offices, columbine, and all of the other "victim disarmament zones" and how brilliantly they worked as well. In other words, be clear that you're attacking the model, not the specific implementation used at VT.

 

[george29]

Great Job, I couldn't have done it better. Now listen to all the English Lit. Majors here and make it perfect.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

never mind

 

[george29]

never mind

Gilda Radner in disguise?

 

[ConfuseUs]

Now listen to all the English Lit. Majors here and make it perfect.

I'm no English Lit major. Far from it in fact.

And how goes the paper?

 

[trickyasafox]

I'll post the final draft at the bottom of this post with the original authors name removed that i referenced

no i don't keep any firearms at school- no firearms on campus and i have no permanent address to register firearms at in NYC with the 48th precinct to make it legal- so the guns stay at home.

thanks again all for the help.

A Response to: 'Gun Control is Out of Control'

In 5 years at Fordham an article has never incensed me as much as "Gun Control is out of Control". I would like to present the alternate view.

First - I've been a card carrying NRA member for many years. I was raised around firearms and taught to respect them for what they are: tools. Firearms are tools that can be used to protect life as well as take it.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads: “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.” Why the PREVIOUS AUTHOR omitted the part of the amendment that referenced the people I can only speculate.

PREVIOUS AUTHOR states in his article that 20 of the 22 nation's gun laws are not enforced. In the United States, there are over 20,000 different firearm laws on the books. If one were to cherry pick 22 gun laws perhaps 20 in that group could be found that have lax enforcement.

PREVIOUS AUTHOR claims “8 children each day die as a result of guns.” The US Government stated that 1.7 children die each day from gunshot wounds. If one excludes suicides that number drops to 1.3, or about 475 children per year.

So where did this other statistic come from? It came from a biased study conducted in the early 1990s in an effort to pass more anti-gun legislation. The Study's authors defined a child as any person up to and including 20 years old. Over half those deaths reported occurred in 17-20 year olds: people in their late teens and early adulthood. Furthermore the majority of these homicides of "children" were committed while the victim was committing a felony or due to the victim's membership in a gang.

Let's look at what other hazards children face for comparison: The US Government reports that 13 teenagers die everyday from car accidents, 7 of which occur while the teen is driving. If the US stopped teens from driving cars 1 day out of about every 8, that would save more lives than removing every firearm in the country. How about alcohol? Drunk driving causes 1,500 deaths per year in the teenage demographic and a further 300 accidents resulting in death occur with alcohol labeled as the direct cause.

PREVIOUS AUTHOR cited a number of different nations with populations roughly totaling that of the United States. He cited Japan, Sweden, France, Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, and Australia. Five of those nations are in the top ten for highest standard of living and highest income and the other three are in the top 18. Of those, four rank higher than the US, and constitute over 2/3rds of the total population of the US. Of the four nations that rank higher than the United States, private ownership of firearms drifts between just over 9% to well over 22% of the population. I believe the availability of legal guns is an insignificant factor and other social determinants are more significant causes of violent crime. If I picked 8 nations at random, including some of the poorest countries in the world instead of solely the richest, I'm sure we'd see a very different distribution in murder rate per capita.

Finally let’s look at the effectiveness of gun-bans. While handgun possession is ILLEGAL in Washington, DC., the murder rate in Washington, DC. is 56.9 people per 100,000 citizens. Across the river in Arlington, VA. - a more affluent area that has NO such ban on firearms - 2.02 persons per 100,000 residents are murdered.

If PREVIOUS AUTHOR wants to save lives by playing numbers games, getting rid of guns is a pretty poor choice. It appears guns are a contributing factor in keeping people safe. Seemingly innocuous things like cars accidentally kill more people in the US than guns. Many US homicides are committed with things like baseball bats, knives, pipes, fists, feet, etc. Maybe we should worry more about upping the average standard of living in the US: That seems to have the greatest impact on violence when different countries are compared to one another.

VT was a tragedy that took place in a GUN FREE ZONE. Imagine if one armed citizen - a professor or a student - was allowed to exercise their right to keep and bear arms for self defense that day. At least then someone might have had the power to stop a crazed killer when he or she needed it most.