My article

[josiewales]

Hi guys, I just wrote an article,my first, and was wondering if you guys will give me some pointers. Here's my article, pull it apart and tell me what's wrong with it. This is just a rough draft.






First I would like to say how much I was grieved and horrified by the recent shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School. Sadly, this has sparked much discussion about gun control in the last several months, creating many knee jerk reactions including the proposal of a new assault weapons ban. I would like to ask a few hypothetical questions, and give a few statistics regarding this sensitive subject.

First, let us look at history, for it repeats itself. Have there been nations in the past that have used gun control, and did it work?

In 1919 the German government established Vorschriften für den Waffenbesitz—or Regulations of Weapon Ownership—which declared it illegal to own or possess firearms or ammunition. In 1937 they began rounding up the unarmed and defenseless Jews and killed 160,000-180,000 Jews till the end of the second World War.

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” --Adolph Hitler, in “Hitler's Secret Conversations 403” (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)

Mao Tse-tung first implemented severe gun control before beginning the genocide of 1956-1967 in which between 45,000,000-70,000,000 lives were taken. The defenseless peasants had no way to protect themselves as he himself very well knew. “An army of the people is invincible!” --Mao Tse-tung, Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung

There have been similar instances in Russia during Lenin's rule and during Lenin's successor Stalin's dictatorship, in Italy during Mussolini’s rule and in Korea under Kim Jong Il's rule.

Australia in 1996 enacted severe gun laws, and in the next years, armed burglaries rose by 44%, assaults nationwide rose by 8.6%.

One of the guns Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, used was already banned in that state.

William Spengler, who purposefully shot the first responders he called to a fire he set, used an AR-15 which was already banned in his state of Connecticut. Which proves that killers will kill no matter the restrictions placed upon them or any kind of weapon.

My next question is: does the Government have the power to restrict firearm ownership without repealing the 2nd amendment? No. The founders intended for us to be armed in the exact same way as the government was or is. If we had not been we would still be under British rule. But, gun control advocates say, they had muskets! They didn't know we would have 30 round magazines! It doesn't make a difference. The military firearm of the day was the Brown Bess musket, a .62 caliber smoothbore flintlock. It was the fastest loading, deadliest handheld firearm of its day. In the 1700's civilians could even own “weapons of mass destruction” i.e. a man'o'war battleship, something with the ability to raze New York City to the ground. A modern day equivalent of a Brown Bess musket would be M4 carbine something civilians cannot own with out ATF tax stamps and extensive background check. This gun is fully automatic, with a pistol length barrel—a true assault rifle. The AR-15 is the civilian version with a rifle length barrel and is semi-automatic. Which means one cartridge discharged per trigger pull, which means it is not an assault rifle. So the founders did intend us to have AR-15s and case could be made for over the counter sales of real assault rifles, like the M4. Thus the Government does not have the right to restrict firearms ownership or ban any kind of firearm.

Also, look at the crime rate in varying states and cities. Texas has unrestrictive gun laws and, despite illegal immigrants coming over the border in thousands, has a low per legal capita crime rate. In Austin, Texas in 2011 they had a rate of 3.5 murders per 100,000 residents. In Chicago gun are outright illegal to own and they had 16 murders per 100,000 residents in 2011. That is more than 4 times worse! In Illinois in 2011 they had 5.6 murders per 100,000, but in the very unrestrictive states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming they had 2.3, 2.8 and 3.2 murders per 100,000 people, respectively. In the state of Vermont, the state with the least gun laws in America, in 2011 they had 1.3 murders per 100,000 residents! Clearly there must be a connection here.

If an Assault Weapon Ban is passed it will be taking away a sacred, fundamental right of the American people. What happens when the Big Shots discover AWBs don't work? They come after the rest of our guns. 100 years later, we have no guns and the crime rate is as bad as ever.

Thank you for taking time to read this, and I encourage you to continue research on this subject.

Sincerely yours,
Josiah Stoltzfus

 

[btg3]

Both first and second paragraphs begin with "First".

I would not consider your first two questions to be hypothetical.

You give more than a "few" statistics. Since you list these stats, consider using a bullet point list, rather than multiple paragraphs.

The purpose of your writing should be clearly stated up front. I do not believe that your purpose is to pose questions and offer stats.

Is it really sad that gun control discussion was sparked, or did you intend to convey that the Sandy Hook shooting was a sad event.

Writers typically don't ask for public critiques of rough drafts.

Apparently, you have a desire to write. If you want to be a good writer, there are better approaches than to appeal to a like-minded audience who may or may not have the credentials to assist you.

Hope this helps and is in line with your request.

 

[josiewales]

Thank you, it was very much in line with my request.

 

[youngda9]

I'm no English major...but that sounded like a fine argument to me.

 

[avs11054]

Just a couple of discrepencies. I thought 6 million jews died during ww2. Also, wasnt lanza's gun CT legal?

With regards to your question of the second amendment. While I agree with you, you may want to reword it or find evidence to back up your argument. SCOTUS has ruled that the government can restrict ownership. So as it is currently worded, I would say that your statement is false and SCOTUS is backing me up.

 

[Skribs]

What better way is there to get your work corrected, than to put it on the internet where everyone will tear at every error?

I'll agree with btg, there didn't really seem to be a clear point. Gun nuts understand what you're talking about, but a fence-sitter (who you really want to speak to), might not be able to tell where you're going. Your introduction should lay out clearly what your topic is, and then orient the reader as to what is going on.

I saw four arguments being made:
1) Countries in the past have used gun control to facilitate genocide. (and it was WAY more than 180k Jews).
2) Gun control laws already in place did not affect the mass shootings.
3) The AR-15 being the "modern musket". (the M4 uses a 14.5" barrel, which when combined with a 1.5" muzzle device is NFA-legal. so you should only make the full/semi-auto comparison).
4) State-to-state comparisons.

#2 and #4 should probably be moved next to each other, as they are similar.

Also, as I said above that you need to orient the reader as you go into the article, you also need to orient the reader as you transition between points.

One last suggestion: there are two types of writing, informational (technical writing and journalism) and entertainment (stories). When doing informational writing, your main points should be clear up front, so people only need to read the first paragraph to know what you're talking about, and then the details should be down below.