My essay - Firearms

Please critique my essay. Along with that, and the major point of this post, please share your opinions on the issue at hand in general.


________

Eric Dzezinski 17 September 2011

Importance of Firearms in Order to Preserve Sanity in Humanity​

Firearms are a necessary and controversially important factor in maintaining human life and preserving order. Without proper means to restrain those who disobey the attempts to govern such a people, the anarchy of these rebellious few would result in the destruction of an organized civilization as a whole, where any attempts to restore sanity would be deemed irreversibly futile. Based on the personal opinions that I have formed, I believe that weapons -specifically firearms - are to be given not only those who enforce the laws that govern the people, but all who attempt to maintain order within themselves and those who they are to protect (Lagun 1.)

As a starting point, law enforcement officers and other protectors of order should be given the right to possess and publically carry firearms to maintain the order that they’ve sought to defend. These are not normal individuals; they have passed rigorous assessments to determine their accountability for their actions, along with possessing the state of mind to correctly decide, in a time of stress, the appropriate decisions regarding individuals who chose to not abide by the rules that govern our society. These persons have the ability to operate under stressful situations and choose the correct path, and act under the rules that they live their lives by. From normal town police officers, to the elite group of 3200 Special Forces secret service agents tasked with protecting the president of the United States, each of these must be armed with the sufficiency to detain those who oppose the true order set forth by the Constitution of the United States, the very foundation of law in our country (USSS 1.)

As I have stated earlier, I believe that civilians should also be armed with the capability to purchase and operate a firearm of sufficient type to defend their families, careers, animals and material possessions. Assault weapons deemed for military use and automatic weapons are not necessarily the type of protection that is required for this purchase, which is the reasoning for Federal restrictions on these weapons have been in place since 1934 (Henderson 107.) A small, semi-automatic or manual weapon, in my personal and educated opinion, is enough to maintain order in a civilian life and household.

I do not believe that there is an accurate way to assess who is psychologically stable enough to be able to wield a firearm. Those who wish to do harm to others are inevitable in any society of human beings, but I cannot fathom a method of determining the unique from the insane. Without proper means of removing the dangerous from the population, it is unconstitutional and unethical to remove the second amendment rights of an individual based on judgments made by another human being who is subject even to the same assessments. Only a single being is sure of the actions of that being, and that is the being himself. These conjectures conclude that adulthood and maturity of the mind should be the only preemptive factors in determining the right of a person to own and train with a firearm. Of course, there must be rigorous and advanced mental and physical testing to decide those who will publically wield force to end another human life.

In conclusion of the statements above, I support the ability of every physically able and mature human to own a firearm for protection in the United States of America. There is no appropriate way to test those who should be deemed unworthy of this right, and every civilian should equally share this chance regardless of gender, race, ethnicity or stature. Above those civilians and even more affirmative in my debate is the requirement for law enforcement officers to carry this same right, due to their duties as an officer and the testing that they must endure to be in that position.



________
Not finished.

 

I am currently in the process of making most of the corrections that you have stated.
Thank you very much for your assistance.

 

You also have a few other similar statements scattered about.

You don't need opinion statements in a persuasive paper such as this. It is implied that what you say is your opinion.

In general, I would also avoid the "Jane Schaffer" essay format (intro, 3 points, conclusion), but I have no idea what your teacher wants as far as that goes.

Other than that, I would say it's reasonably well-written.

 

What's the point of the essay? If this isn't a philosophical class on morality, your best pro-firearms argument would be the impossibility of removing them.

In any case, if you are arguing pro-firearms just in general, I would take your argument down a notch. I wouldn't say that they are essential in preserving humanity (easily disputable as people lived civilly before their invention). I would just point out positive things that we can now do with firearms that we couldn't before. Even though it isn't valid reasoning, maybe even use an emotional story of a firearm saving someone's life to put your argument in good light.

As for arming police officers, just say that the officers deserve the right to have a weapon with them that is powerful enough to allow them to execute their actions. Maybe even say that if there was a 0% chance someone breaking the law didn't have a firearm, you would be fine with police not having them either, but police risk their lives each day to protect the civil population from men with firearms and therefore must have firearms of their own.

A few minor things.
Capitalize President of the United States
Capitalize Secret Service
Remove Special Forces (Secret Service agents are not military special forces, they are federal law enforcement officers)

Don't say household at the end of paragraph 3; it conjures the image of a family member using a firearm to force another family member to do something, not a pretty image.

A few holes in your argument:
Can prisoners have firearms?
Can permanent residents have firearms?
Can those decreed mentally insane have firearms?

 

This is for a general education class and could have been written like a five year old.
I would go above and beyond and correct what you have all shown me but since this isn't even for an English class, the teacher isn't very sure of proper essay formatting and subject-ism, so there's really no problem. He'll just see big words and give me an A, which is the point.

 

Alright, but remember, you want to get the best education you can. It sounds like you're in a shit school, but dont let that stop you from challenging yourself.

I guess I'll give my opinion on the subject matter then. I disagree with you that there is no way to prove someone is incapable of having the right to hold a gun. If someone has shown themselves to be a significant threat to society, i.e. is a felon, he or she should never be able to posses a firearm. Additionally, anyone who has been deemed mentally insane or is institutionalized should also not be allowed to posses a firearm.

 

If you have the attitude that the teacher will see big words and give you an A then what is thr point in asking for critiques?

It is bad for an essay like this to be written in first person. Try to go through and get rid of all the "I" "my" type words.

Also stuff like "as a starting point" and "as I said earlier"..

I am currently on my iPod, I will critique this better when I get home.