Gun rights
Liz Stucke
Core 202
Journal 5
Sarah Thompson, a retired physician and a strong advocate for gun rights, made many strong arguments that validated gun usage for the law-abiding citizen. Specifically, Thompson is a psychiatrist, and has written more about the psychological fear of guns and how much of it is irrational. In this essay, Thompson addressed many misconceptions about crime rate that were skewed by uncontrolled studies. The fact that the medical field skewed results of published studies for compensation from the government is what makes Thompson so passionate about this subject, as she is a retired physician herself. As these statistics are debunked in the article, you begin to see that guns are most often a benefit to those using self-defense rather than to criminals, who will inevitably get their hands on a gun anyways. Another study, controlled and designed well, and described as almost indisputable shows evidence that crime rates decreased in areas overtime where concealed carry was legal. I found the study at University of Chicago’s website and found that the reference was valid in its description. The study was highly descriptive and explanatory in procedures and categorization of different kinds of assaults. I found the results to be convincing. Though I am not as radically driven as either of these authors (I wish to neither outlaw handguns or reduce restrictions on them), I am more inclined to side with Thompson on this issue. Thompson refers to factual data shown to be very accurate. These pieces of data are based on true occurrences and backed up by logic.
Nan Desuka grew up in Los Angeles and mostly writes about ecology. Ecology is the study of organisms and their relationship with the environment; this may give Desuka some credentials and an understanding to write on social problems such as these. Dasuka immediately confronts the idea that gun advocates have that only “criminals” kill people. With this, she proceeds to bring up instances
Core 202
Journal 5
Sarah Thompson, a retired physician and a strong advocate for gun rights, made many strong arguments that validated gun usage for the law-abiding citizen. Specifically, Thompson is a psychiatrist, and has written more about the psychological fear of guns and how much of it is irrational. In this essay, Thompson addressed many misconceptions about crime rate that were skewed by uncontrolled studies. The fact that the medical field skewed results of published studies for compensation from the government is what makes Thompson so passionate about this subject, as she is a retired physician herself. As these statistics are debunked in the article, you begin to see that guns are most often a benefit to those using self-defense rather than to criminals, who will inevitably get their hands on a gun anyways. Another study, controlled and designed well, and described as almost indisputable shows evidence that crime rates decreased in areas overtime where concealed carry was legal. I found the study at University of Chicago’s website and found that the reference was valid in its description. The study was highly descriptive and explanatory in procedures and categorization of different kinds of assaults. I found the results to be convincing. Though I am not as radically driven as either of these authors (I wish to neither outlaw handguns or reduce restrictions on them), I am more inclined to side with Thompson on this issue. Thompson refers to factual data shown to be very accurate. These pieces of data are based on true occurrences and backed up by logic.
Nan Desuka grew up in Los Angeles and mostly writes about ecology. Ecology is the study of organisms and their relationship with the environment; this may give Desuka some credentials and an understanding to write on social problems such as these. Dasuka immediately confronts the idea that gun advocates have that only “criminals” kill people. With this, she proceeds to bring up instances