John Embler Braun English 255 31 January 2014

Annotated Bibliography
Drexler, P. (2014). Smoking Guns: The Deafening Silence of the Assault Weapons Makers. Time.Com, 1. http://proxy.lib.utk.edu:90/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ap h&AN=93976227&scope=site This article made the argument that assault weapons are Americas biggest problem in guns, and the producers of these guns should be held at least somewhat responsible for creating these weapons that are designed to kill people and then selling them to pedestrians. Peggy Drexler argues that when the second amendment was written high capacity magazines were not being considered and thus should at least be reconsidered. Drexler sums up her argument saying that with the decline in hunting rifles being sold the manufacturers are making assault weapons more available and appealing to all while claiming they are for protection purposes. Drexlers goal was to persuade readers that gun companies should be held responsible for the assault weapons they create due to their intended purpose, killing. In this article, Drexler used the pathos appeal by relating back to the former killings with assault rifles. Her intentions were to make people remember the horrible events of the past and then relate those incidents to a particular weapon and push the blame onto the maker of these weapons. Drexler intended to target people on the fence about gun control laws and show them that some of these guns really are dangerous

and major players in gun crimes. She structured her argument by building onto it with more negative information about the guns and argued that a change in policy should be made where assault weapons are concerned. In my opinion, Drexler had a good argument backed by information that all points in the same direction.

Miller, Z. (2014). Administration Proposes Fixes To Gun Background Check System. Time.Com, 1 http://proxy.lib.utk.edu:90/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ap h&AN=93576200&scope=site Zeke Miller wrote this article to inform law abiding citizens that there have been two reforms with background checks following the Newton School shootings. These reforms seek to keep guns out of the hands of people with severe mental health issues. This is being done because the shooters in the most recent gun massacres have been known to have mental health problems. These new reforms will allows states to see if the customer has had any major mental health issues and is intended to keep assault weapons out of the hands of people who may put themselves or others at risk. According to the article, these reforms come in response to the congressional Republicans continuous rejection of the Obama administrations attempts to pass additional gun control laws. Miller wrote this article to inform and describe the newest laws passed concerning gun control. Miller uses the logos appeal on his readers through stating the facts of the new law reforms. Miller used a casual argument that told why the reforms where happening. I felt that Miller had some good information in his article, but he should have done a better job of describing what exactly was going to be changed and how it would be done.

Obama Gun Control Scheming Sparked Record Firearm Sales. (2014). New American (08856540), 30(3), 8. http://proxy.lib.utk.edu:90/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ap h&AN=93814446&scope=site This article discussed the fact that the government threatening to crack down on gun restrictions actually increased the sales of both guns and ammunition. The article states that now for back to back years the United States has set records for total gun and ammunition sales. The article goes on to say that new laws are being applied mostly on the state level and the majority of them are making firearms easier to obtain. The article is arranged in a logical way that builds upon its facts. The author seems to want to inform the reader of the facts as opposed to trying to persuade in one way or another. This article demonstrates how the government attempted to increase gun control and ended up weakening of such laws. This article has factual information that pertains to all citizens who either own or plan to own guns, and so far the government has failed to do what the allegedly tried to do. I believe the author is using the logos appeal here because of the use of facts and statistics in the article. The type of argument used here is an argument of evaluation, questioning: is talking about and attempting to change gun laws a bad idea resulting in the complete opposite way it was intended to be? I feel that the author did a good job of conveying the facts and providing a non biased factual description.

(2013, December 9). Inexcusable Inaction. America. p. 5. http://proxy.lib.utk.edu:90/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ap h&AN=92685525&scope=site The article Inexcusable Inaction takes a stab at the political legislation in the United States arguing that public opinion concerning gun laws does not coincide with Congresss decisions on them. The article chronologically presents a pathos appeal pinpointing on readers emotions through the massacre at Sandy Hook. By appealing to readers emotions the author successfully makes it seem as if the government is in the wrong in this situation. This article was intended for people who seek reform in gun laws and it brings out their emotions as well as persuade them that these horrible shootings have ended up increasing gun sales instead of decreasing them. This article attempts to expose the government of their alleged wrong doing and convince the public that we must act together to make any real changes. This article makes a causal argument that states the government is responsible for the lack of reforms even though public opinion says otherwise. The article hit hard on the emotions of its readers and discussed shocking information about the governments actions not coinciding with public opinion, which solidified this argument in my opinion.

Issue Proposal
Gun control is a major ongoing debate in the United States, and there clearly has to be something done. I propose the instalment of registration cards that everyone interested in buying any guns or ammunition must register through the United States government and receive an identification card upon approval. I have always had a fascination with guns due to the roll they have played in our history, and the fact that I come from a family of hunters and greatly enjoy hunting myself. Personally, I do not think guns are as big of a problem as the people that can get their hands on them. I believe my readers would be interested in my proposal because of how big of an issue gun control currently is, and I feel that my proposal is a fair and ideal way of reformation. Through my research I have learned that there are many differing opinions on gun control, but they all come back to the same question: should there be a reform to make it harder to obtain firearms? According to Drexler, the decrease in hunting causes for the decline in hunting rifles purchases which makes gun makers want to persuade buyers to purchase there more exciting and dangerous assault rifles. Drexler states, missing in those arguments: of all the implements used to kill people -- knives, fists or a handy vase -- only guns are created to do exactly that, and only assault weapons are manufactured expressly to do that as quickly as possible. Seriously -- could Adam Lanza have dispatched 26 innocent souls in Newtown in five minutes with anything but an assault weapon?(Drexler, 2014) She uses this argument to show that if people want to kill they will, but she attempts to demonstrate that it is much easier to kill in masses with a gun. I agree with Drexler when it comes her argument that assault weapons are more dangerous and they can prove to be detrimental in the hands of the wrong person, but I do

not agree that the manufacturers of these guns should be held responsible. They are not selling anything illegal they are simply maximizing profits with no intention of harming innocent people. The article Administration Proposes Fixes To Gun Background Check System describes new reforms that have been made in gun control. According to the article, The White House said the Department of Justice is taking steps to clarify terms in the federal law barring those with certain mental health problems from purchasing firearms following complaints from states that have called the statute ambiguous. (Miller, 2014) I whole heartedly agree with the intentions of the actions discussed in this article, in my opinion, if a person is at risk of harming themselves, then I do not see any reason as to why they should be able to purchase firearms. The article, Obama Gun Control Scheming Sparked Record Firearm Sales discusses the fact that while government discusses gun reforms they are actually increasing the prevalence of guns. According to the New York Times, quoted in the article, 109 new gun laws have enacted at the state level since Obamas push began, and 70 of them have actually loosened restrictions.(Obama Gun Control Scheming Sparked Record Firearm Sales, 2014) This statistic surprised me due to the fact that the majority of the new laws actually make it easier to obtain firearms. The article also states that in the last two years the United States has had more gun sales than ever previously recorded. This statistic, however, did not surprise me. I would expect sales to increase due to the fact that everybody wants to stock up in order to avoid them becoming harder to purchase or more expensive. The article Inexcusable Action is a constant bash on American government and society as it relates to gun control. It discusses reform laws that have been shut down and how they are actually increasing gun purchases. The article also uses emotional appeal with a Sandy Hook personal story, but I was surprised by a statistic in the article that stated: A recent survey by Johns Hopkins University confirms that 89 percent of

Americans support universal background checks and that significant majorities support bans on assault weapons and the high-capacity magazines that serve them. Why does such legislation time and again stall in Congress?(Inexcusable Inaction, 2014) I am not for the banning of any weapon even though I am attempting to push for the reformation of obtaining guns, but I was surprised to such high public opinion polls with no legislation action. Although I am not for the banning of assault weapons I do believe that the government should always be for the people and abuse of power should not be tolerated. My proposal is a question of policy for the reformation in the way citizens obtain guns and ammunition. I propose identification cards to be available to all citizens to apply for. After being accepted you could purchase ammunition and guns that you qualify for. (i.e. specific licenses would still be required for the purchase of fully automatic, silenced, etc) If you apply and do not get accepted you cannot buy guns or ammunition from any retailer and identification card must be scanned prior to all purchases. Ideally, information could be kept and updated on a database, as discussed in Millers article, upon scanning the card the retailer would be able to assure that the customer is in good standing as far as the law is concerned, and the amounts of what firearms and ammunition each individual purchases could be monitored. In my opinion, the bad guys are not going to give their guns up just because its the new law therefore law abiding citizens should have the right to defend themselves in the same way. With that being said, there are currently no restrictions on the purchase of ammunition other than age (21 for pistol ammo, 18 for everything else), thus making ammunition harder to obtain should decrease the inappropriate use of it. I have a feeling that the technology I am discussing would be highly expensive to obtain and then operate, but I am not sure of that. Also, I am not sure about the taxation of firearms and

ammunition as it is right now or what this new technology would do to that which could prove to be a major factor. Most importantly, I would also need to find out how the public and government would react to these changes.