http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/opinion/lessons-from-the-murders-of-tv-journalists-in-the-virginia-shooting.html?_r=1
In his August 26th, 2015 New York Times opinion piece, "Lessons from the Virginia Shooting," Nicholas Kristof argues that stronger gun regulations must be implemented in order to bring down the rates of gun related deaths in America. Kristof starts by listing statistics relating to gun violence, such as that American children are fourteen times more likely to die from guns than children in other developed countries, then cites the Virginia shooting as an example of recent gun homicides, and lastly presents solutions for this widespread issue - more detailed background checks, limits on how many guns a person can buy in one month, and more research on how to make guns safer. The author's purpose is to assert that gun violence is a major issue in this country, and present possible ways to reduce the incredibly high number of gun related deaths per year. He writes with an assertive yet rational tone in an attempt to convince the reader that gun control is an issue that must be addressed immediately.
I wholeheartedly agree with the solutions that Kristof presents to this issue. I think it should be much more difficult for just anyone to obtain guns. Careful background checks, for example, seems like an obvious answer, so it's shocking that this is not a requirement everywhere. Banning guns is not realistic, and giving guns to everyone is ridiculous. There has to be a middle ground, and I think the regulations he supports in this article are totally plausible.
The basis and ideas in your precis are well thought out. I find issue in the syntax and the following of the directions. The only issue I have with sentence 1 is that the date of publication ought to be in parenthesis after the name of the article. The second sentence is very well written and matches the instructions perfectly. I find issue in the lack of an "in order to" in the third sentence. It seems to be required in the instructions. Finally, the fourth sentence lacks a specific audience. Many different people could qualify as the reader (such as non-Americans or children to young to understand) , while the article is directed at only a part of that qualifying group.
ReplyDeleteGood critique, Nathan. Where's your personal response?
ReplyDeleteI find no issues with your personal response. I also wholeheartedly believe in finding the middle ground. We need restrictions on guns far beyond our current preventative measures.
ReplyDeleteThe question that has been posed to me upon my discussion of this issue is: how do we plan to stop people who buy guns through others? There are many cases where shooters have had friends purchase weapons for them. While some of what Kristof mentions seem to help in those cases, such as smarter weaponry, it doesn't really solve the issue.