Your goal for this week's initial blog:
1) Identify the thesis of both people in the following video.
2) Identify which person you believe used the best tactics and supported his argument the best (not necessarily the viewpoint you agree with), and describe what those tactics were, and how they were supported.
3) Make a counterargument to the point of view that you believe was best supported, and identify how the opponent in the argument could have better supported his side.
I know that both men have decent arguments, but you must do more than acknowledge this perspective.
As a trial, rather than responding to three people, respond to one person (someone who has no other comments, preferably, unless that is not possible), and engage with that person's point of view. Remain respectful. Then, each student must also respond to the comment(s) on their initial blog. This will encourage meaningful dialogue rather than a quick, "You made a good argument, &tc."
Please use support in your response to your classmate: from the video, from other sites, and/or from that classmate's initial post. Because you must give your classmates a chance to engage in the conversation, please 1) post initially by Monday's class, 2) construct your one response by Wednesday, and 3) post the final response by Friday, midnight. If you have questions, please let me know.
After watching the video I believe that Piers Morgan's stand was that AR-15's are too powerful to be a civilian weapon. Joshua Boston's opinion was one of a civilian's right to own and be educated about the AR-15 as a home protection right. Unfortunately I believe Piers did a better job on the debate. Although I don't agree with Piers I do think that his use of back up videos and the facts he presented showed he was more prepared for the debate than Joshua was. I believe that what Joshua said was true but when going up against someone like Piers Morgan you need more statistics and fact based information to throw at him. I liked the examples he brought up but there just wasn't enough. When Joshua mentioned being able to pass on his AR-15 when he passed away to his children Piers kept referring to them as children. I would have pointed out to him that by the time I was old and dead my children would then be full grown adults and more than capable of handling my AR-15. We as Americans have to face the facts that there are criminals in this country and the 2nd amendment gives us the right to defend ourselves against our enemies. How can I defend myself against a criminal in my home with automatic weapons if all I own is a hand gun with the capability of only 6 bullets. 30 Vs 6 ins't very good odds.
ReplyDeleteI am one that disagree with piers but i think he did bring a stronger arguement. But i would have to say that protecting your home with 6 bullets is doable, and many people have the six shooters for home protection. i think busting out the AR in an event of home robbery would take too long, or it wouldn't be tactical. you can still defend your home with a six shooter. that is incase of robbery. but if people are coming at you with the intention to destroy, then maybe an automaic weapon is necessary, or the case of zombie attacks. but a six shooter can definetaly protect your home.
DeleteActually most handguns have between 7-8 bullets and many magazines can hold 10-32 bullets. How many your's holds is up to you. Can you get away with the smaller amount? Sure you can but why only have the bare minimum. It's like when you buy car insurance. You don't get liability on a brand new car. You get full coverage. I have no idea how many people may be attempting to break in to my home but if there are numerous intruders how far with 6 or 7 bullets go? Personally my Sig holds 8 bullets but if I ran out you better believe I will be grabbing my second magazine. My boyfriends Sig holds a 15 bullet magazine and he also keeps multiple magazines with it, so he can actually use up to 45 bullets with the 3 of them. That is more than you will get with the typical 30 round AR-15 magazine which happens to be semi-automatic not an automatic just like our SIG's.
DeleteThe thesis I think for this video for both parties in the video are about the same, gun legislation should or should not be passed. The host, I think his name is Pierce Morgan, seems to use a little better tactics during this clip. I think that's to be expected though as this is mainstream media, and the host always has the advantage of knowing the questions beforehand which lets him set up his argument better. I like the car reference but that is a little overused but gun advocates these days. What some people don't realize about this gun legislation they are trying to push through is that it's not just going to outlaw AR-15's, or semi automatic guns, it also is going to outlaw high capacity magazines among other things. What this basically means is you can own a pistol, but you can't have a magazine that will hold over 10 bullets for it. The second amendment was passed to arm a civilian population against a government that could, and has, become out of control. It was passed so a civilian population could defend themselves against their government. Can we as a population really defend ourselves against tanks, M-4s, M-16s, etc, with pistols that only hold 10 rounds? The answer is no. The second amendment wasn't put there so we could or could not own a AR-15, it was put there so we as a civilian population could defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. I just don't see that happening if we don't have the same, or at least similar, firepower as the government would deploy.
ReplyDeleteRobert,
DeleteWe as civilians wool never have the firepower of the government. We will personally never own nuclear weapons, or Bradley's, however, we can and hopefully always will have the firepower to protect or families and homes. I pretty much agreed with your analysis of the debate as far as the speakers. Good job and this topic is one that will be debated for a long time.
Pardon the typo. Will not wool. I didn't proof read that well.
DeleteIn the video, Pierce Morgan wants the government to take the automatic weapons away from civilians. He had a strong argument and he had videos supporting his argument. Joshua Boston on the other hand, said he didn’t want to be disarmed. Mr. Morgan mentioned that if these laws don’t pass, Malls and Movie Theater would be selling these automatic weapons (straw man). Though, Morgan had a strong argument and support, Boston said the American people are smart, they know when to use their weapons and when not to. He went on to say that “we will always content with criminals”. I believe that if the government passes these laws, nothing would change, like Boston said, there will always be criminals and these criminals will always find a way to commit their crimes.
ReplyDeleteChei,
DeleteYour points are well respected. However, I beleive the point Piers Morgan was getting at was not that malls and movie theaters would be selling these types of weapons, he was rather speaking of the laws that already exist, in which prohibt the carry of AR- 15's and similar style weapons in places such as these. I could only imagine if a disagreement or altercation took place over who gets what seat in the theater, and it escelated to the point of gun fire, with citzens armed to the tee with high capacity weapons. We would have a wild wild west shoot out in public places everytime someone disagreed with another person. These are hypothetical statements, but so are ones such as criminals will always find ways to commit their crimes. Laws already exist that "control" certain weapons and how they may or may not be used, and when and where. Criminals may find any way to commit a crime, but there are several cases that continue to spring up more and more, that involve these criminals ( some of who were law abiding citizens prior to their crimes)using these high capacity weapons to commit murder, crime ext. I see it as irresponsible by our government not to adress and handle the factual issues at hand, and continue to let these tragic events occur. Our citizens are due for a much better service than that.
your points are well recieved. I agree with you that some criminals were law abiding citizens, in some cases, they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. but as you said, there are already laws in place that prohibits semi-auto weapons in certain places. i think that we already have enough gun laws in place, i think more extensive background would go futher than more gun laws. i do not disagree with you that it's irresponsible of our government not to address the recent tragic events, but if i think more gun control laws would stop it, i will be for it one hundred percent.
DeleteIn the video, Pierce Morgan's view is that assault weapons should be banned. Joshua Boston's view is that no weapons should be banned. I believe that Joshua Boston did a better job at supporting his argument. Morgan's argument was supported by the repeated emotional appeal that assault weapons are designed to kill and do a lot of damage. He also said the average citizen has no need for these weapons. Boston addressed the issue in, I believe, a more logical manner. No one is arguing that assault weapons are designed to do major damage. All guns are designed to kill, as Boston reminds us. Boston takes us back to the 2nd amendment. One of the reasons for the right to bear arms is to protect ourselves from an oppressive government. Boston addresses this. Boston also refers to several incidences where the gun owner showed restraint and good judgement in not using his/her gun. He also refers to times when the use of guns saved lives. Boston reminds us that laws, guns or otherwise, will only be followed by law abiding criminals. This leaves us unarmed targets for the criminals. I believe Morgan failed to address any of these issues. He was definitely more well spoken, but, I feel Boston addressed the issue in a more factual way.
ReplyDeleteI believe Morgan could have better argued his view by addressing some of Boston's claims. He might have tried to interpret the 2nd amendment differently or may have used examples of when armed victims escalated situations. He should have, at the very least, answered Boston's statement regarding citizens having guns to keep the government from doing things they should not.
Merri, I agree that Boston did a better job of presenting, however I don't think better arguing the point of the 2nd amendment would have been successful. That is the core of the entire debate right now. 200+ years later we're still trying to decide what the forefathers meant when they said right to bear arms. Both sides are equally right as this is a very open statement, as arms can include everything from a knife to an RPG, and this amendment in no way attempts to define what kind of armament someone is allowed to bear.
DeleteI must say I also agree that it's primarily in place for protection from a tyrannical government. The only good reason for a government to disarm it's citizens is to turn them into subjects. I've lost all trust and faith in the government over the last few years, and the worse things get, the more I put faith in a gun over my government. At least a gun would be there when I needed it, instead of 15 minutes later with a body bag.
Robert,
DeleteThank you for your response. I'm with you. I don't, necessarily, feel that we are in immediate danger of the government taking over. However, I believe that taking away the right of citizens to arm themselves is certainly opening up the door for a person or government of that mind. I do believe that people who own guns should be held responsible for their behavior. Strict punishment with 0 tolerance should be put in place for those who use guns in the commission of a crime. I also believe people should be held responsible if a child has access to their guns and injures or kills someone. Rights come with responsibility.
Viewing the interview with Pierce Morgan vs. Joshua Boston I believe that the thesis for both individuals are whether guns like the AR-15 should be further measured for Americans to have in their household. The tactics to support that the AR-15 weapon should not be on the streets of America were well presented by Pierce. Pierced used a video clip from a General stating that he didn’t see why those types of weapons should be on the streets of America and as the general explained the damage the type of weapons can cause to a human body, he stated that there is no need for those guns in America’s streets. Pierce understood and respected the fact that American people would like to defend themselves against harm, but did not agree with the types of weapons especially the AR-15 type of weapon to be used as a common weapon of defense. On the other hand Joshua Boston attempted to explain that the second amendment was to allow Americans to have the weapon of choice to bear for themselves. I could see what he was trying to communicate but because he failed to support his side of the story by assuming that American people are not triggers happy, they are smarter than that to know when and when not to fire is not a fact that holds any truth to it. Joshua says it himself that education about the weapon is key, but that fact that there are ruthless people in this world that can use that education to cause immense damage exists as well.
ReplyDeleteCrystal,
DeleteI believe the education that Boston was referring to isn't how to shoot the guns, but how to use proper care. To get your hunting license you are taught not only how to shoot your gun but how to hold it carefully as not to harm others and how to keep the safety on, and what is legal or not legal about how to transport your weapon. It is the same with concealed weapons permits. If you can't pass the test and be proper with the weapon you don't get to graduate the class. My children all know not only how to handle and shoot their weapons and our but they have been taught all about the safety of them. That is what is important and what our country needs to protect our selves against criminals.
This video was very informational and civil from both sides of the aisle. Piers Morgan presents the case that AR-15s, and military style assault weapons have the capability of mass destruction/murder, when placed in the wrong hands with a proper motive. The opposition-Joshua Boston believes the Second Amendment protects the rights of citizens to posses and bear these certain types of military style weapons, and to have them at ready access, for multiple purposes to include self defense. While Mr. Boston presented a very valid case, the fact that Piers has the ability to manipulate air time, and decide what videos are being played and viewed, allows him to push his agenda in a more efficiant manner,and support his point of view with factual evidence( I.E. the testimony of of Gen. Stanley Mcchrystal in support of gun control) Boston essentially didn't stand a chance at jousting with Piers in terms of providing visual evidence. However, some addditional persuasive facts that he could have brought to the discussion table in support of his claim would be- How the founding fathers often reffered to an armed society as a " Free Society." He could have also mentioned, that asside from personal protection, the Second Amendment was originally established and ratified to protect the sovereignty of a free state from the reign of a tyrannical government, which is an ideology that so many gun supporters are curently in fear of. Lastly, while Mr. Boston did recognize the 1994 assault weapon ban (that was passed under President Clinton,) and how ineffective it was proven to be, he did not do a very good job of comparing the current proposal to that paricular ban, and how speculation is already buzzing about how much stricter and ineffective this ban would be in terms of lowering gun related crime, death and suicide.
ReplyDeleteJared,
DeleteI agreed with your analysis of the video. I think that Piers had the advantage of showing videos, knowing the questions beforehand, and as you said manipulate air time. I think that the video of the general speaking was totally presented unfairly, and they tried to make him out to be a expert just because he was a general in the Army. Even though I agreed with a lot of your post I had a question on the difference between the assault rifle ban put forth by Clinton and the one try to be passed right now. What are the big differences between the two? Granted I haven't read they WHOLE legislation, as I'm sure no body really has (even the politicians trying to pass it), but I didn't see a big difference between the two. Again I'm just looking at the main points they look fairly similar to me, could you shed some light on the differences?
Robert Landals,
DeleteI am glad we are on the same page about the main stream media, it seems to constantly be biased.The main difference between the current proposal and the 94 ban are, firstly a buy back system that would be set into place as an incentive to sell these weapons back to the provider (very effective in Australia recently), in an effort to remove these types of weapons from the availability of the everyday citizen, and the insane minded. California has already implemented this style of law on a state wide level. The second and most important factor in comparison of the two laws is, the technology that is now applied to these weapons which are of easy access. The newly proposed laws, address certain weapons such as semi auto pump action shot guns, fully automatic .50 cal machine guns and Barret .50 cal sniper rifles ext. and would also limit these weapons from being used, bought and sold. I agree there are are many similarities within the prior laws, and the newly proposed ones. However, the biggest factor I find are the stats that show- the only real piece of solid/good and indisputable evidence from the 94 ban are as follows- The ban absolutely lowered the amount of police officers shot on the job by assault rifles/ high capacity weapons during those time.
I know I am a little late with my response to this video, thus my apologies.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, this video clip was a good example of things I try to avoid because it angers me. Pierce Morgan is arguing against certain firearms in American citizens hands, whereas, Joshua Boston is arguing for every American's right to have weapons.
Naturally Pierce Morgan will come across more put together and having his argument flow. He is a professional speaker and prepares his questions and answers ahead of time plus he has writers that help write his questions and prep him. That is what I expect from a professional. It is unfortunate ( that I believe) that Pierce Morgan did a better job arguing his point of view, but again, that is what I expect from someone who gets paid to argue professionally.
Joshua Boston is an honest citizen who fought for his country's FREEDOM. That freedom is the right to bear arms. The United States Bill of Rights states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Had Joshua Boston been well hearsed and he had been coached on how to speak to professional speakers on television, his argument would have been much stronger. I do feel he was more credible based on him NOT being rehearsed and polished. Joshua Boston could have been stronger in saying that tougher gun laws do not keep criminals from possessing guns. If a person wants to commit the crime, they will find a way. The car reference I thought was good, but should have been stronger. Using more powerful words, tougher speaking voice could have taken that argument in a whole other direction.
The female in the beginning of the video, sorry do not remember her name, said the Second Amendment did not allow American citizens to carry any firearm they wanted; however, it does not restrict a specific firearm either. That argument was outlandish and not credible.
I tend to see the media as less credible just because that is what they do. I believe in doing all my own research on any and all subjects and form my opinion from there.
Nickie,
DeleteGreat response. I like your statement regarding Boston being more credible because he is not rehearsed. He spoke from the heart, and from the viewpoint of common sense. Something both sides could use a little more of. I like that you referred to Pierce as a professional debater. I think the line between the media and professional debater is getting muddy. I believe if members of the media want to become professional debaters, they should start referring to themselves this way. They have given up the right to be called reporters. Way back in my way back machine, news reporters were supposed to report the news without bias. They no longer hold to that. That leaves the listener unclear as to whether they are, indeed, reporting news or voicing their opinion. Thank you for pointing that out in your response.
Merri,
DeleteThanks for your response. After I wrote my blog, it felt as though I was coming across a bit angry, which was not my intent. Thank you for picking up on the point I was really trying to get across.
There is a pair of theses here. The one by Feinstein, stating that she doesn't believe that the 2nd amendment applies to weapons tagged as assault weapons, and the one by Boston, which is a counter thesis to Feinstein's, stating that he does believe the 2nd amendment does extend to all weapons. Both use logic and emotion, drawing on effectively the same statistics, gun violence and protection of children. I would say, though, that neither side actually did more for their argument, but the side of gun control did make the case for less gun control. An explanation on that.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that gun control often gives is that everyone armed would create a lawless environment. The gun control proponents here seem to hint at this, while not outright saying it. However, gun control has been shown to be a failure many times before. Australia is a prefect example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaDAThOHhA
Watch this video. Think for a moment. Law abiding citizens turn in their weapons. What about those who already don't care about laws, or live outside of them? The numbers show that with an unarmed populace is nothing more than victims. Police don't show up fast enough to stop a murder, a rape, a mugging, an assault, anything. These are all things that are often reported after they've happened, and they rise when firearms or any weapon are taken out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
Yet, there could be an argument made for gun bans. We already ban certain types of weapons which could cause hideous amounts of destruction and terror with little to no skill on the part of the user. It's been shown that just about any weapon can do this with a skilled, or even sometimes unskilled, operator, as well. Guns are not the problem, it's the ammo, a gun without ammo is nothing more than a blunt weapon.
If there were limits on ammo stocking, how much ammo an individual could purchase in x amount of time, with exceptions given in situations when necessary such as lawful discharging of the weapon at let say a gun range or during an attack on that person or another person requesting aid in such a situation, the possibility of this sort of law passing would be greater. Yes, it would still be possible for a single person to amass large amounts of ammo, however, by forcing this, you could find the people supplying others with these large amounts of ammo, criminalizing them for their part as a conspirator. However, the amounts would have to be reasonable enough to not create another public outcry against it.
Additionally, magazine size should remain untouched. A drum magazine does seem like overkill. We don't really need those. However, 20 rounds in a magazine is not unusual, nor should it be banned. That is a reasonable amount of ammo, and since the majority of crimes involve the use of unmodified pistols with standard magazines, the person with the advantage would almost always be the intended victim, vs the criminal.
In short, gun control is going no where as it stands now. It's obvious that it's too easy for a gun to wind up in the hands of a criminal, however, we are all potential criminals from a purely law enforcement standpoint. We can't take guns away from people who need those to protect themselves. Yet, we can't have them in the hands of criminals. We need effective ways that allow people to keep their weapons, yet limit the potential for damage, and have a backup just in case somehow someone skirts these laws through foreseeable technicalities.
To build upon my second to last paragraph, a graph showing what types of weapons are most commonly used in crimes. https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_10.pdf
DeleteRobert,
DeleteThank you for the additional resources on the subject. I own now guns. (Don't tell the criminals). I am a grandma, don't hunt, do shoot for sport and don't currently want to own a gun. That being said, I believe that disarming public citizens is like issuing open season on law abiding citizens.
There needs to be an answer to the horrific violence. I understand our law makers concerns. We all want to prevent children being murdered and mass killings. I am a strong advocate of having the toughest laws in the world regarding the use of guns in the commission of crimes. If everyone who uses a gun to commit a crime, whether or not they kill someone, does heavy time, that might start changing some minds. Twenty years in prison and you forfeit the right to ever legally have a weapon again sounds good to me for a start. Second offense, another 20 years. That should put the offender at least 50 years of age. It gives the rest of us 40 years of safety from that particular felon. Sign me up.
Merri, I respect your opinion, but it's been found that criminals don't care about what kind of penalty their actions might carry. I worked in Corrections for 3.5 years, and outside of those doing life, few were actually repentant for their crimes. Many saw it as business as usual, kill him before he kills me, or the only way to make money, depending on the type of crime being committed. While there is little in the way of an overall crimes that are not reported/caught out there, murder alone, one of the hardest punished crimes, has a solving rate of around 61%. And that's for something almost everyone agrees should be punished severely, and something that has a very significant impact on the lives of everyone who knew the now dead person. Effectively, it's nearly a coin flip whether you're going to get caught and punished, and the same is largely true of most crimes. Any form of gun control would see a similar issue.
Delete