Rachalle Germoso
Dr. Amy Trogan
ENC 1102
20 March 2015
Smart Guns vs. Human Safety
Is it believable for any gun to actually save one's life? The New York Times op-ed columnist, Nicholas Kristof, believes that the invention of the smart gun can better the safety of those around us. Kristof's wrote an editorial in the beginning of 2015 called "Smart Guns Save Lives. So Where Are They?" In this editorial, he states that younger children around the preschool age are killed more than police officers are killed by firearms yearly (Kristof). He utilized specific experts such as a gun expert, a public health expert, and different visuals to set the right tone for his argument. Kristof relies on ethos and also logos to convince his audiences of concerned
…show more content…
citizens that his arguments are legit. Kristof is able to effectively convince his audience his claim of fact about gun safety is true by using evidence, examples, and inside information from several experts. Nicholas Kristof has a weekly opinion editorial, which may explain his high levels of credibility when it comes to discussing the health and safety of people. When Kristof argues about the safety of others with using smart guns, people who read this editorial will value his argument. In his editorial, Kristof has several important purposes which are to inform and convince. He first informs his audience that "according to a study by the journal Pediatrics, about 20 children and teenagers are shot daily in the United States" (Kristof). Not only do minors get shot throughout the nation daily, but “according to the F.B.I. and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, more preschool-aged children are killed with firearms each year (about 80 a year) than police officers are killed by firearms which is (about 50) per year” (Kristof). Kristof introduces Kai Kloepfer's and his invention of the smart gun. Kloepfer is a “17-year-old senior in high school in Boulder, Colorado” (Kristof). The reason for Kloepfer to engineer a “smart gun” was because of the “cinema shooting” that occurred near Aurora. That is when Kloepfer decided that the gun would be a great invention for “his science fair project.” According to Kristof, Kloepfer states; “I started with iris recognition and seemed a good idea until you realize that many people firing guns wear sunglasses… So I moved on to fingerprints.” (qtd. in Kristof). Kristof tries to persuade his audience that smart guns are designed to recognize one's fingerprint to authorize that the owner's fingers are “on the grip[s]” of the gun (Kristof). Not only can it recognize one fingerprint but "more than 1,000 fingerprints can be authorized per gun" and the sensors percentile accuracy reaches 99.999 (Kristof). The 99.999 percentile accuracy on the smart gun will help those who are facing the gun because the gun’s accuracy will read the fingerprint and will not verify the fingerprints. According to Kristof, there are other attempts to Kloepfer's design of the smart gun. The most well-known is the “Armatix iP1, made by a company in Germany and are available in the United States through online procedures.” The Armatix iP1 gun, which can only be discharged if the owner and authorized user is wearing the designed wristwatch (Kristof). Overall, Kristof displays his argument in a very professional tone, specifically in a very specialized tone.
Not very stunning given that Kristof is an expert who deals with the health of the people and their rights of humanity. Throughout his editorial, Kristof gives credibility to several experts. Towards the end of his argument, Kristof gives credit to gun expert Stephen Teret at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Teret proclaims, "smart guns are going to save lives," "they're not going to save all lives, but wouldn't we want to make guns as safe a consumer product as possible?" (qtd in. Kristof). Also, given credibility is David Hemenway, an expert on public health at Harvard. Hemenway proclaims, “the only way to move forward is for the military and the police department to [purchase] smart guns and create a market that proves smart guns work [and provide safety to others]” (Kristof). Adding the two experts and gives credibility to their expertise. This shows Kristof’s respect to the experts through his tone and style of message. Also, throughout his argument, Kristof consistently reinforces his main message, which is how safe is it to have a smart gun around that can verify a fingerprint with almost a perfect 100 percentile accuracy around children and thieves. This demonstrates his use of …show more content…
logos. The last element that Kristof provides is plenty of great examples throughout his argument. He adds in his argument: Veronica Rutledge of Blackfoot, Idaho, took her son to a Walmart store to spend holiday gift cards. As they strolled by the electronics section, according to news reports, the toddler reached into his mom’s purse and pulled out a handgun that she legally carried. He pulled the trigger once and killed her (Kristof). Kristof provides a great argument explaining, “[parents] can protect [their] children from toys that can be a choking hazard, but not from firearms.” (Kristof).
Now “Veronica Rutledge is dead,” and her son will live his life acknowledging he was the reason of her death and "we all will bear some responsibility when we don't even try to reduce the carnage" (Kristof). Kristof makes a great argument and shows how important it is to for someone to secure their weapons for those who have infants. Kristof provides great examples relating to gun incidents. A few weeks prior to the Walmart incident, “a 3-year-old boy in Washington State was shot in the face by another infant of 4-years-old.” (Kristof). Finally in Pennsylvania, a 2-year-old boy “shot and killed his 11-year-old sister.” (Kristof). Kristof adds these great example to show the significance of those with guns that are easy for infants to steal, dispatch and fire while killing anyone in sight without precautions or any motives. These are just prime example why guns should be designed only for the authorized user and can only be use with a verification of the fingerprints. With this designed gun "a child will not be able to fire the gun and neither can a thief" which can be relevant in any region of the country because annually more than 150,000 guns are stolen (Kristof). Kristof makes a valid point. Once a gun is activated with fingerprints or with a companion wristwatch, a child or a thief will not be able to fire a
firearm which this invention can save many lives. Kristof adequately argues his claim of fact using different modes of persuasion. Kristof is an editor who is very credible when it comes to understanding who his main audience. Throughout his argument, Kristof leads his point throughout with an appropriate tone and the usage of examples, statistics, ethos, logos, and important sayings from experts. Kristof is able to compose an argument that is valid and believable. He is able to successfully inform his readers about the safety hazard of guns without any precautions. The use of Kloepfer's invention of the smart gun also makes a strong point, as well as to convince them that his claim is honest and logical. Work Cited Kristof, Nicholas. “Smart Guns Save Lives. So Where Are They?” The New York Times. New York Times, 17 Jan. 2015. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.
In conclusion, Kristof’s arguments had flawed ideas about regulating guns because as we have seen before, a background check will not stop a man from shooting his entire family, and a gun lock will not stop a terrorist from shooting innocent people. As was said in this writing, his comparison of a gun to a car was flawed in the way that a gun has much more power over man than a car does. Vehicles were invented for transportation over long distances, while a gun was made for killing. This doesn’t compare to a vehicle in any
American Sniper is the movie that I chose to analyze because it is full of moral and ethical decisions that have to be made. The movie starts off with a boy at school that has to go pull a bully off of his little brother and he ends up beating the bully up so bad that blood is all over his face. The boys name is Chris Kyle. The film then skips forward to when he is in his twenties and is riding a bronco at the rodeo since that is his passion. He then decides to join the Navy and become a SEAL after he feels like his purpose was to serve his country. He gets deployed to Iraq and the mental part is hard on him especially when he has to shoot a women and a kid when he sees them trying to throw a grenade at a group of Marines. He tries to help
He incorporates several tense explanations of this issue in order to evoke pity and sadness within his readers. Kristof says, “In America, more preschoolers are shot dead each year (82 in 2013) than police officers are in the line of duty (27 in 2013), according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI.” By including this harsh statistic, it effectively supports his argument and its seriousness. Kristof continues to fill his article with emotionally-charged phrases and statistics such as the comparison between civil war deaths and gun deaths. Cold hard facts really paint a picture for the reader, being that one may be shocked to read how gun deaths have impacted our world
Through the year’s shootings have increased by a significant amount. Individuals are becoming affected on a regular basis and are concerned about there safety. Parents are worried for there youth getting assaulted, sexually violence, tormented, kidnaped, murdered on the other hand, now there ending up to be more stressed for there child getting shot. Guns have been around for hundredths of years, both world wars were succeeded with guns, hence, guns were served to defend its nation through history. In Western society citizens purchase guns for self preservation. Unfortunately, they are utilized in opposing ways, the majority of crimes are involved in gun shootings; this is an essential issue in America. Most agree that gun violence will have
As the generations of America’s youth continue to grow, so does the increase in violent crimes associated with each generation. Over the last decade, studies have shown that school shootings have increased by an astonishing 13%. Although this figure as a percentage does not seem like much, it makes one stop and think. Parents blame the video games and their violent behaviors for the influence on their children’s daily lives. Grandparents blame the child’s parents for not showing them the right way to grow up in the world. And then we have that child’s friends who say that this child just was not respected by their classmates, or perhaps even bullied into this violent nature. Regardless of the cause to this violent increase, many Americans do believe in a solution: gun control. Gun control is the situation in which the federal government would put a ban on owning firearms. Contrary to what many “hard-core” Americans believe, gun control would not necessarily ban them from owning hunting rifles or even personal handguns. It would simply limit the ownership of semi-automatic assault rifles, and other rifles of this nature. This does not contradict the Second Amendment of the Constitution which states that American citizens have the Right to Bear Arms. I believe in the constitutional Right to Bear Arms, and I am against any attempt to eradicate that right for any American citizen: however, I am for gun control in the sense of lowering the possession of semi-automatic and fully-automatic rifles.
Gun Control in America is seen as ineffective, citizens believe gun control laws in place are not protecting lives, but taking them away. In order to solve this problem, many think more laws should be put in place. By doing so, they believe guns would no longer be in the hands of criminals and lives would not be ended before their time. In Christine Watkins’s article, “Stronger Gun Control Will Save Lives” She explains that if guns were objects that truly kept us safe, America would be the safest country in the world. She also states that a gun in any home is more likely to be mistreated, causing an accidental shooting. She also hints that more common sense laws would greatly benefit gun owners (Stronger Gun Control). One of her points is quite agreeable, more common sense gun laws would be entirely useful in the long run. By having more safety guidelines, such as; trigger locks, which make it so the gun cannot be used, keeping the ammunition and the gun separated, never pointing a gun at another person, unless your life is in life threatening danger, making sure the weapon is properly cleaned on a regular basis, and even teaching children how to properly handle weapons. By taking these common sense precautions to use, it would prevent innumerable accidental misfires in homes. On the other hand, laws put in place to simply make it more difficult to obtain a weapon is not the answer. By keeping guns out of the lawful citizen’s hands, only the lawbreakers will benefit. Author John R. Lott, Jr. wrote the book entitled More Guns Less Crimes, informs readers that by having a concealed weapon, as opposed to carrying a weapon openly, carries more potential to reduce crime rates across America. By concealing a weapon, no one knows who is ...
Upon reading and analyzing Kristof’s arguments and conclusions on this issue, the reader can come to respect his perspective as he satisfies the first quality of a responsible reasoner. The first of four criteria “Responsible Reasoning is Well Informed” is outlined as stating; “To argue responsibly, a person must support his or her opinions with reliable and current evidence.” (Crusius and Channell 9). Through the use of authority via the voice of David Hemenway, author and Harvard professor, Kristof presents the reader with Hemenway’s stance that, “the gun debate [is] a public health challenge, [making] clear that a gun in the home makes you much more likely to be
Gun admirers have statistics that will prove their side on guns saving lives. According to one study by Lott “… for each additional year that laws allowing people to carry concealed handguns were on the books, robberies decli...
This point is substantiated by the fact that having a privatley owned firearm in a household, makes a family member five times more likley to be fatally shot than in a non-armed household. Perez-Pena (2015) articulates that each year around 30,000 preventable deaths are caused by firearms which accounts for 18% of injuryrelated deaths in America. It is also stated that the accociated medical bills cost the taxpayer $100billion a year. Prehaps the most intresting point raised concerns the so called ‘gun show loophole’, in which guns sold at shows or by small scale sellers do not require buyer background checks, in theory allowing the categorically banned demographic - discussed earlier - to purchase firearms. The article argues that if this loophole was closed and more stringent controls and checks were enforced, firearm deaths, injures and the associated cost could be significantly reduced. In essence the argument for stricter gun control laws centres around decreacing firearms deaths and
Violence related to guns is a prominent issue in America. Guns are a means to an end; meaning guns have played a strong role in suicides, murders, and injuries. In the past decade there has been an average of 400-500 thousand incidents of firearms per year (Gun Violence). The number of injured people from firearm incidents in the United States per year for the past decade is 400-600 thousand people (Gun Violence). These statistics are absolutely shocking to anyone. The amount of violence and crime that comes from guns is enormous. It is imperative that proper gun control is put into place by means of background checks and proper training. It can almost be certain that the number of incidents of accidental discharges from children and the number of victims affected by gun crimes in general can be highly reduced.
Supporters of gun control state that to decrease crimes committed with fire arms (which amass a high majority of crimes) guns should be banned from private ownership. This removes guns from the public, therefore taking away the instrument of easily accomplishing crimes. Arthur Kellermann and Donald T. Raey, two gun control advocates, did their own research into the issue and published a discovery of their own; the 43-1 Statistic. In this statistic, Kellerman and Raey state that a gun will be used in a justified shooting one time, while forty three other people are killed by a gun unjustly, either by suicide, accident, or criminal (Heumer 9). According to these two researchers, gun ownership is not worth it. Private ownership of guns saved one life wh...
Today in the United States many people argue over the fact of guns being legal or illegal. There are people using guns for personal safety and there are others who use them for crimes, as well as for other situations. Firearm deaths in the United States have slowly been decreasing from year to year with all these bills getting passed to promote a safer country than ever before. Guns are the main weapon for youth suicide, school shootings, and for committing murder. In 2010 there were 2,711 infants, child, and teenage firearm deaths. As in school shootings and in committing murder, studies show shooters often had multiple, non-automatic guns, shootings were planned, most youth tell before shooting, shooters have a history of being bullied or threatened, shooters have mental issues, and shooters have done suicidal gestures before (Gun Control with School Shootings). Although there are people who use guns for murdering, there are also those who oppose guns being used without the proper requirements. 85% of all respondents to the survey supporting requiring states to report people to national background-checks systems who are prohibited from owning gu...
...mes and the consequences resulting from it, and introduces the lack of children's protection and the solution to fix it. Kristof compares guns with cars and ladders, explains the results from gun violence, and introduces the problem of many guns violence and the solution of stricter gun rules. I agree with LaPierre's viewpoints on gun control, but overall Kristof has a stronger argument than LaPierre because Kristof uses his strategies more effectively than LaPierre does. Although LaPierre appeals to pathos and Krsitof does not, Kristof discusses more in detail with his strategies and appeals to logos while LaPierre does not. By examining multiple points of view in the conversation of gun controls and gun regulations, the audience can understand multiple ideas than just one idea and think more in-depth about his or her viewpoints on gun controls and gun regulations.
Gun violence in America is a public health crisis, which needs to be recognized and changed by legislatures, and the voting American. As conscious Americans, we need to vote for changes to gun laws that would improve background checks nation-wide, make firearm registration mandatory, restrict the sale of assault weapons and weapon modifications that give the shooter military-grade fire power, and invest in gun-safe technology and safe firearms storage designs. This type of technology will help prevent criminally oriented people from accessing guns, and will help prevent the accidental deaths of many children by guns. This essay will explain the reforms needed to help ensure Americans can still exercise their 2nd amendment right of owning firearms, and preventing the unnecessary deaths of many Americans at the same time.
There is nothing wrong about protecting yourself, but we have to make sure that the weapons we use to protect ourselves don 't get to the wrong people. " The debate about gun control is a global issue. However, it is more intense in the United States of America than any other region (‘Gun Control’ par 1). The groups against gun control show concern about violent crime and they don’t perceive gun control is the answer to violence committed using guns. However, they support strict laws against gun-related crimes and better enforcement of those laws. On the other hand, those who support gun control are of the opinion that background checks are