Kitchen_Duty
Member
////EDIT: A new version of my essay is on the 2nd or third page, thanks for the replies so far and more to follow. 10/16/2009 12:24 PST
I was asked to write in my english 101 class for college a 3-4 page, double spaced essay of a expository essay. Since my professor didn't assign a topic I chose weapon free zones. (more details of the requirements for the essay can be found in my post below)
I wanted to create a linear pattern of thought throughout this essay for the reader to think about the choices they have in different situations. Then give specific examples of where these choices were denied. Please critique my work as I want this to reflect a High Road attitude. I do not want to come off very "soap box" or snobbish, just calm examples and reasonable thinking.
The numbers in parenthesis eg (1), are for my small list of sources, which aren't required for this essay but as good supporters of the 2nd amendment I feel are needed. Thank you in advance. I appreciate your comments.
Choices
Let me begin, if I may, with a question. Do criminals follow the law? If you cannot answer this question with an assured 'No' then please, stop reading. Like almost every math problem in the world there has to be a set of “givens” or “initial conditions”. If we cannot agree on these initial conditions then we may not proceed. If you answered “yes” then please, continue and let's talk about choices.
I present to you more initial conditions. In 7 days, these three separate events will happen to you, guaranteed, without uncertainty. While cooking, a small appliance in your home will catch fire. You will be mugged and subsequently stabbed by a thief. While driving home your car will have a flat tire. I also append to these certain circumstances that emergency services will take exactly 10 minutes to arrive. I now propose the question; what are your choices to prepare for these events that will happen to you?
The worst place in the world is to be on the phone with a 911 operator in need of help. Something dire is happening to you and the 911 operator has just told you, “The police/ambulance are on the way.” You only have a few seconds till tragedy and the rescue service, which is just getting the call from the dispatcher, are minutes away. I cannot fathom the amount of people in the United States who have been in this situation; situations like house fires, robberies, or just common flat tires. Most state, county, or city governments cannot afford to place enough emergency services to have them respond immediately in a crisis. This places a great responsibility for your own personal safety on you.
There are places in the country that have no cell phone service. Great stretches of land where outdoorsman; hikers, campers, and hunters, can go and get away from it all. Remote places like this also harbor criminals that grow illicit drugs.(1) These entrepreneurs are frequently very protective of their crops and will resort to violence to protect it. What does a hiker do against desperate armed men and women who does not want to go to jail? In the above examples the police were exactly 10 minutes away. What if they are unable to respond to you because you cannot call them?
There are usually two crowds involved in this debate of self protection. There is one crowd that states that the criminal is to blame. The person behind the act is whom we persecute. There is also a crowd that goes after the tool that is used. If a person is murdered in a swimming pool, do we make swimming pools against the law?
The 'swimming pool crowd' usually resorts to self protection issues as a police function. They say that if they are in trouble, they will dial the police, and the police will come and protect them. Jessica Gonzales thought the same thing. Her husband, in violation of a restraining order came to her house unannounced. The husband took her children. Thinking harm would come upon her or her children, Jessica called the police. The police were not concerned because he was the children's father. The husband later murdered her three children even after multiple calls from Jessica about the incident. Jessica sued the Castle Rock police department citing that the police, under the restraining order, were to respond and protect her children. The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 against Jessica that she could not sue the police for not enforcing the restraining order. Even though the court had ordered the husband to follow a certain set of rules; the police were not there to enforce them. (2)
What about specific examples were police were not able to respond in time to protect civilians. Let's pick on the phrase “going postal.” Since 1983 there have been more than 40 people killed in more than 20 incidents involving postal worker shootings. (3)
School shootings are also a prime example of the inability of police protection. Many of these are covered extensively by the media. Most of us know about Virginia Tech, Columbine, and the most recent University of Washington shooting of Rebecca Griego (4). Many events like this, especially in situations like Columbine and Virginia Tech, the police arrived when the event was unfolding but could not intervene. All they could do was surround the area and wait till the criminal either stopped, or in those situations, turned the gun on themselves.
How many killings do you hear about coming from areas like shooting ranges, army bases, or gun shows that are not from accidents? In the post offices and schools, the murderer used firearms. If they are the problem, then where there are a significant amount of them being used; it must be a murder festival.
If you are lucky enough to be reading this in a post office, a school, a courthouse or other government building then you have had your choice removed. These areas are called “Weapon Free Zones.” They bar weapons of any kind onto their property. But wait! Didn't I ask a question at the beginning, who follows the law? Law abiding citizens follow the law, criminals do not. In all of these examples it was illegal to murder someone. Yet the murderer broke that law. It didn't matter if they used their fist, a baseball bat, or a firearm.
What these “Weapon Free Zones” do is remove your choice. If you agree that the police are not there to defend you and you are legally barred from being able to carry a firearm for your defense, doesn't that give the criminals more choice?
(1) : Marijuana Eradication Efforts Move to the White Mountains
Written by Tom Woods Thursday, 17 September 2009 15:44 http://www.ksrw.sierrawave.net
(2) Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Supreme Court case: 545 U.S. 748 (2005) Failure of police to enforce a restraining order
(3) Edmund, OK, 1986. Ridgewood, New Jersey, 1991. Dearborne Michigan, 1993, Dana Point California, 1993. To name a few specifically.
(4) Two Killed in University of Washington Shooting, April 2, 2007 http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_040207WABuniversitygouldshootingTP.25f0537f.html
I was asked to write in my english 101 class for college a 3-4 page, double spaced essay of a expository essay. Since my professor didn't assign a topic I chose weapon free zones. (more details of the requirements for the essay can be found in my post below)
I wanted to create a linear pattern of thought throughout this essay for the reader to think about the choices they have in different situations. Then give specific examples of where these choices were denied. Please critique my work as I want this to reflect a High Road attitude. I do not want to come off very "soap box" or snobbish, just calm examples and reasonable thinking.
The numbers in parenthesis eg (1), are for my small list of sources, which aren't required for this essay but as good supporters of the 2nd amendment I feel are needed. Thank you in advance. I appreciate your comments.
Choices
Let me begin, if I may, with a question. Do criminals follow the law? If you cannot answer this question with an assured 'No' then please, stop reading. Like almost every math problem in the world there has to be a set of “givens” or “initial conditions”. If we cannot agree on these initial conditions then we may not proceed. If you answered “yes” then please, continue and let's talk about choices.
I present to you more initial conditions. In 7 days, these three separate events will happen to you, guaranteed, without uncertainty. While cooking, a small appliance in your home will catch fire. You will be mugged and subsequently stabbed by a thief. While driving home your car will have a flat tire. I also append to these certain circumstances that emergency services will take exactly 10 minutes to arrive. I now propose the question; what are your choices to prepare for these events that will happen to you?
The worst place in the world is to be on the phone with a 911 operator in need of help. Something dire is happening to you and the 911 operator has just told you, “The police/ambulance are on the way.” You only have a few seconds till tragedy and the rescue service, which is just getting the call from the dispatcher, are minutes away. I cannot fathom the amount of people in the United States who have been in this situation; situations like house fires, robberies, or just common flat tires. Most state, county, or city governments cannot afford to place enough emergency services to have them respond immediately in a crisis. This places a great responsibility for your own personal safety on you.
There are places in the country that have no cell phone service. Great stretches of land where outdoorsman; hikers, campers, and hunters, can go and get away from it all. Remote places like this also harbor criminals that grow illicit drugs.(1) These entrepreneurs are frequently very protective of their crops and will resort to violence to protect it. What does a hiker do against desperate armed men and women who does not want to go to jail? In the above examples the police were exactly 10 minutes away. What if they are unable to respond to you because you cannot call them?
There are usually two crowds involved in this debate of self protection. There is one crowd that states that the criminal is to blame. The person behind the act is whom we persecute. There is also a crowd that goes after the tool that is used. If a person is murdered in a swimming pool, do we make swimming pools against the law?
The 'swimming pool crowd' usually resorts to self protection issues as a police function. They say that if they are in trouble, they will dial the police, and the police will come and protect them. Jessica Gonzales thought the same thing. Her husband, in violation of a restraining order came to her house unannounced. The husband took her children. Thinking harm would come upon her or her children, Jessica called the police. The police were not concerned because he was the children's father. The husband later murdered her three children even after multiple calls from Jessica about the incident. Jessica sued the Castle Rock police department citing that the police, under the restraining order, were to respond and protect her children. The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 against Jessica that she could not sue the police for not enforcing the restraining order. Even though the court had ordered the husband to follow a certain set of rules; the police were not there to enforce them. (2)
What about specific examples were police were not able to respond in time to protect civilians. Let's pick on the phrase “going postal.” Since 1983 there have been more than 40 people killed in more than 20 incidents involving postal worker shootings. (3)
School shootings are also a prime example of the inability of police protection. Many of these are covered extensively by the media. Most of us know about Virginia Tech, Columbine, and the most recent University of Washington shooting of Rebecca Griego (4). Many events like this, especially in situations like Columbine and Virginia Tech, the police arrived when the event was unfolding but could not intervene. All they could do was surround the area and wait till the criminal either stopped, or in those situations, turned the gun on themselves.
How many killings do you hear about coming from areas like shooting ranges, army bases, or gun shows that are not from accidents? In the post offices and schools, the murderer used firearms. If they are the problem, then where there are a significant amount of them being used; it must be a murder festival.
If you are lucky enough to be reading this in a post office, a school, a courthouse or other government building then you have had your choice removed. These areas are called “Weapon Free Zones.” They bar weapons of any kind onto their property. But wait! Didn't I ask a question at the beginning, who follows the law? Law abiding citizens follow the law, criminals do not. In all of these examples it was illegal to murder someone. Yet the murderer broke that law. It didn't matter if they used their fist, a baseball bat, or a firearm.
What these “Weapon Free Zones” do is remove your choice. If you agree that the police are not there to defend you and you are legally barred from being able to carry a firearm for your defense, doesn't that give the criminals more choice?
(1) : Marijuana Eradication Efforts Move to the White Mountains
Written by Tom Woods Thursday, 17 September 2009 15:44 http://www.ksrw.sierrawave.net
(2) Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Supreme Court case: 545 U.S. 748 (2005) Failure of police to enforce a restraining order
(3) Edmund, OK, 1986. Ridgewood, New Jersey, 1991. Dearborne Michigan, 1993, Dana Point California, 1993. To name a few specifically.
(4) Two Killed in University of Washington Shooting, April 2, 2007 http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_040207WABuniversitygouldshootingTP.25f0537f.html
Last edited:
