CHAPTER 7 Responding to Objections and Alternative Views discussion toward solving the problem of gun violence Annotations in the margins indicate how Colleen is practicing Rogerian principles. An Open Letter to Robert lis Article “ yer Learn COLLEEN FONTANA (s¥U IDE Dear Robert Levy, My recent interest in preventing gun violence led me to find your arti- cle “They Never Learn’ in The American Spectator about the mass shoot- ing at Virginia Tech in 2007. 1 was struck by the similarities between that incident and the recent shooting in Tucson, Arizona, where a young man gunned down US. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and nineteen others in a supermarket parking lot. Although your article came several years be- fore this Arizona incident, we can see that gun violence remains an endur- ing issue. I have long struggled with the question of how we ean reduce gun-related violence without detracting from an individual’ right to own a ‘gun. Your article shed new light on this question for me. ‘Your article stresses the need for something different from our nation’s current gun policies. You assert that the solution lies, not in stricter gun control policies, but rather in “liberalized laws,” According to you, Mr. Levy, it was primarily the existence of anti-gun laws on the Virginia Tech, ‘campus that prevented an armed citizen from saving the victims of the 2007 shooting, You comment that “gun control does not work. It just pre~ vents weaker people from defending themselves against stronger preda- tors.” Your article gives detailed examples of studies that have substantiated that stricter gun laws have not resulted in lower murder rates. You also cite cevidence that fewer erimes are likely to happen if the victim brandishes gun, even if he or she never fires it. According to your article, stricter gun laws are doing nothing to help society, and your solution lies in relaxed laws, allowing more responsible citizens to carry concealed weapons. Living currently on a college campus myself, I identify immediately with ‘your concer for preventing school shootings. I appreciate that you are con- ‘cemed with the safety of the students and the public, and I agree that there exists a need for greater safety on school campuses. I also agree that current "We are indebied to Doug Brent for his insight that Rogerian arguments can often be adresse tothe author of an article that a reader finds disturbing, See “Rogersan Rhetoric: Ehial Growth Through Altemative Forms of Argumentation” in Argument Reise; Argument Redefined Eds. Barbara Bim, Pale Resch, and Deborah Tenney. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage, 1996, page 8116 PART 2.‘ Woiting’an argument Common groune: writer identifies, ‘sommen values that she shares with het audience; she demonstrates ‘empathic listening, she imagines instances where the ‘auidience’s values make the most ‘Welter moves Fespecttully to presenting her own ‘questions and differing petspectives on the problem, Note her tone-of negotiation and her wilingniess to ‘engage in further discussion. sgun laws are not effective as ig shown by the mumber of gun-related deaths ‘that happen annually. Even though such las ekist, they are not likely to stop “crazed fanatics tndetotred by laws of murdes” as you say, from committing certain crimes. I particularly agree with you when you discuss the right of self defense, I struggle with laws that forbid carrying a gun because I believe Jn the right of self defense. As you mentioned in your article, instances do ‘occur in which civilians carrying guns have the ability to save themselves and others, Although Ihave not experienced this situation personally, T have read of brave acts of self-defense and intervention. For example, my research trned up an article by John Petco on Minneapolis Examiner.com, “It Takes 4 Gun to Stop a Gunman” In tis article Pierce describes an oceurengs in Richmond, Virginia, in July of 2009 where a store owner and sever] Cus tomers were saved from an armed robber by a civilian in the store who hap- pened to be carrying a firearm: Grasited that Pierce isa long-time gum rights advocate and an NRA certiied instricor, the points he brought up were nev- ‘ertheless striking. IF that civilian had’t been carrying 9 gun in that store on that day; then everyone inthe store might have beet Killed hy the robber. This realization resonates with mo. I imagine myself in that store, and I know I ‘ould have been quite grateful that he was carrying a weapon that saved my life, Reading this story has forced me to think of the responsibility many gur- wining citizens must feel--a responsibility to protect not only themselves ‘but those around them as well, A similar event happened recently in New ‘York where «person atiempting to rob a jewelry shop was shot by the owner inan ect of self-defense, His neighbors regard him as aero (Kilgannon), ‘While I agree with you that self-defense is an important right and that armed citizens can sometimes prevent the death of innocent people, I ‘wonder whether the possibility of allowing more guns in public through liberalized gun laws is the best solution, Is there chance more guns jn the hands of mote people would foster a more danger-prone climate both from aecidents and from sudden fits of rage? I was surprised to learn in 8 recent New York Thmes article by Charles M. Blow that for every ten peo- ple in America there are nine guns, Among major nations, according to a UN. study, we have both the highest ratio of guns to people and the highest incidence of violence: If liberalizing gun ownership will lead to ‘even mote gums, then my concer is that there is a higher chance of chil- dren fiiding a loaded gun in e parent’ bed stand or of deaths caused by gang warfare or from momentary rage.in an escalating fight between neighbors. Such danger could also exist on school campuses if guns were allowed, On a campus where drinking nurtures the patty scene, I worry that rowdy people waving a gun perhaps as a joke might turn a party into ‘tragedy, Do you have/any ideas, Mi. Levy, for reducing gun accidents ot igtesponsible tse of firearms if they are widely available? | found your point about owning a firearm fot self-defense really thought provoking. But even if Virginia ‘Tech had allowed guns én campus, what areCCHAPTER 7 Responding to Objections and Aermative Views the odds that an armed student or teacher would be at the right place at the right time with an actual chance of shooting the gunman? Only in the movies ate good guys and heroes always on the spot and capable of taking the right action to protect potential victims. Although I can really see your point about using handguns for self-defense, I don't think self-defense can be used as a justification for assault weapons or automatic weapons with large clips. If guns were freely allowed on campuses, perhaps massacres such as Virginia Tech. might occur more often. Or is there a way to allow people to carry concealed handguns on campus but still to forbid rifles, shotguns, or other weapons more useful for massacres than for self-defense? ‘After reading your article I have more understanding of the arguments in favor of guns, and I continue to ponder the ethical and practical issues of gun control versus the right to self-defense, You have underscored for me the ‘importance of our continuing to seek means of preventing these terible mas- saeres from happening in our nation's schools, You have also opened my eyes to the fact that no amount of enforcement of gun laws can deter determined people from using guns to harm others. I am not sure, however, thal your pro- posal to eliminate gun control laws is the best solution, and I am hoping that ‘you might be willing to consider some of my reasons for fearing guns, espe- Cially assault weapons and automatic weapons that can be fired like machine sjuns. Perhaps we could both agree that pursuing responsible gun ownership is 1 step in the right direction so that we reduce the mumber of accidents, keep guns away from children, and reduce access to guns capable of unleashing ‘mass murder. Lam hopeful that with our common concer over the current in- effectiveness of gun laws and the desire for safety in our schools, we can find ‘a reasonable solution while stil preserving the human right of self-defense Sincerely, Colleen Fontana Works Cited Blow, Charles M. “Obama's Gun Play.” New York Times. New York Times, 21 Jan, 2011, Web. 21 Mar. 2011. Kilgannon, Cory. “After Shooting, Merchant Is Hero of Arthur Avenue.” ‘New York Times. New York Times, 12 Feb. 2011, Web. 21 Mar. 2011 Levy, Robert A, “They Never Learn” American Spectaton American Spectator, 25 Apr. 2007. Web. 13 Mar. 2011. Pierce, John, “It Takes a Gun to Stop « Gunman.” Examinercom. Clarity Digital Group, 15 July 2009. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. Writing a Rogerian Argument ‘A major thrust of Rogerian argument is building bridges between writer and audience. Because Rogers’ principles originated as a communication strategy between two parties in conversation, Rogerian argument most commonly takes the form of a letter or an openiting an Argument letter directed to a specific person or group. For example, the audience for a Rogerian argument might be a particular person whom the writer already knows, a speaker the writer has recently heard, or the author of an article that the writer has recently read. In all these cases, the writer is disturbed by the audience's views and hopes to open up dialogue. Rogerian argument will most likely include the features shown in the following chart, although not necessarily in any set form. Organization Plan for a Rogerian Argument Ras ih ants oi he problem that i eles Ye 0 obi iv si raters ih z ote wea olay wth he dence il yay thatthe audience Shar that ya understand te audience | Also show ah udetsanding 01 and respec fo, ~ ie aes vale id elit the al tis ‘saying bac | i 9 way eal be eel ae the audiente 4 1 tienen ee vl vit aiding softs your soi tough empatie attain cf vie a ou WOU og ‘inweome 9 ng fhe alec seve byCHAPTER 7. Responding to Objecons and Altemative Views WRITING ASSIGNMENT: A Classical Argument or a Rogerian at Argument Option 1: A Classieal Argument. Write a classical argument following the explana- tions in Chapter 3, pages 4446, using the guidelines for developing such an argument throughout Chapters 3-7. Depending on your instructors preferences, this argument could focus on a new issue, or it could be a final stage of an argumentin-progress throughout Part Two. This assignment expands the supporting-reasons assignment from Chapter 5 by adding sections that summarize opposing views and respond to them through refutation or concession. For an example of a classical argument, see “Half: Criminals’ or Urban Athletes? A Plea for Fair Treatment of Skateboarders,” by David Langley (pp. 106-108). Option 2: A Rogerian Letter Write a Rogerian argument in the form of a letter ad- essed to a specific person, ether someone you know, someone you have heard de- liver a speech, or the author of an article that inas disturbed you. As you generate ideas for your argument, take stock of what you know about your audience and summarize his or her views in a way that your audience would find salisfactory. AS you explore what your audience values and believes in, also explore how your own values differ. Where do you agree with your audience? Under what conditions would you find your audience's values acceptable? Follow the suggestions in the chart that explains the ele- ‘ments of Rogerian argument on page 118 for determining a purpose and structure for your argument. Depending on the distance between your views and your audience's, your goal may be simply to plant a willingness to consider your perspective in your au- dience. For examples of Rogerian argument, see Colleen Fontana’s “Letter to Robert Levy” on pages 115-117, Your instructor may ask you to attach a reflective response in which you describe how your experience of writing this Rogerian letter differed from your experience of writing classical arguments, El