melasanchez0126
Paragraph 1 – What did you do well? What strength did you recognize…
Paragraph 1 – What did you do well? What strength did you recognize in your work? How can will this help you in the future? Draw on a point from your essay and feedback that you received. Refer to a portion of your reading as well.
Paragraph 2 – What area or skill do you think can be improved? How can you do better next time? Draw on a point from your essay and feedback that you received. Refer to a portion of your reading as well.
Paragraph 3 – What would you change if you had the chance to do it over? Refer to a portion of your reading.
Paragraph 4 – What challenges did you face in the research of the topic? What did you learn about the topic you selected? Were there any surprises? Did you find anything unexpected during your research?
Paragraph 5 – Share a final thought about your work. How will your experience in ENC1101 help you with writing in future classes or your career? What advice would you give to
essay in question, for all of these questions^
Nicholas Kristof’s piece “Our Blind Spot About Guns” was published in the New York Times in the year 2014. Nicholas Kristof heavily argues in his well-known essay Our Blind Spot About Guns that if weapons were subject to the same restrictions and controls as motor vehicles, there would be fewer fatal accidents going on. Kristof’s argument is that, while automobiles are far safer than they used to be, firearms do not have the same restrictions that cars have. It is evident from Nicholas Kristof’s writing that our country’s severe gun problem is frequently disregarded. In his piece, the number of fatalities caused by firearms is frequently compared to the number of fatalities caused by cars. According to him, the same precautions must be taken for this machinery as they do for vehicles in order to assure its safety. Kristof believes that the United States has a blind spot when it comes to gun violence and that action is needed to address this ongoing issue that hurts and destroys many people.
Kristof puts it in the following manner: “If we had the same auto fatality rate today that we had in 1921, by my calculations we would have 715,000 Americans dying annually in vehicle accidents” cite. This demonstrates the enormous number of lives that would be lost as a result of cars. The good news is “we’ve reduced the fatality rate by 95 percent not by seizures of these cars, but by regulating them and their drivers properly” (Kristof, 2014) Kristof’s comment demonstrates that in order to have a safer environment, you do not need to eradicate the entire reason. Guns should be handled with the same care. By making firearms safer, like they did with automobiles, we can keep them if they are used correctly and handled with care and safety. According to the author, some proposals for gun safety include enhanced background checks for all buyers and thumbprints as trigger locks on smart firearms like iPhones. If precautions were taken for cars, they should be done for weapons as well. (Kristof, 2014) Nicholas Kristof does an excellent job comparing gun violence to car accidents, giving readers a broader perspective on weapons. In my perspective, I was able to witness how dangerous vehicles used to be and how far they have progressed, Cars have evolved substantially and can be seen now as significantly safer.
Kristof begins his piece with a comparison between automobiles and weapons, providing a cohesive narrative that allows the reader to easily follow the author’s thought process and his obvious aim for the article. The author supports his contention that gun regulations should be changed by contrasting the fatality rates and laws imposed on cars and firearms. Kristof’s piece is quite powerful in the manner he expresses his ideas and demonstrates the need for stricter gun legislation. This essay looks to be more appealing because of how it is structured and how the author supports his ideas with many instances and comparisons. He cites figures demonstrating a decrease in the number of people died in car accidents after regulations were enacted, as well as a difference in the fatality rates for gunshots and car accidents. As was also stated in his article, “We didn’t ban cars, or send black helicopters to confiscate them,” we just made guns safer”(Kristof, 2014)
Kristof’s explanations make it simple for any reader to understand the work and guarantee that their attention is held throughout the article. When seeking to persuade a reader, three tactics are usually used: ethos, pathos, and logos, these are also known as effective writing strategies to persuade a reader. In the instance of this author, Kristof’s use of logos is fairly powerful based on the abundance of facts and figures he offers for his readers to educate themselves on this issue; but his use of pathos and ethos is lacking in comparison to other articles I’ve read, which undermines his argument and his persuasiveness. According to Kristof, implementing persuasive techniques may prevent hundreds of deaths each year if firearms and their owners were subject to the same rules as motorists and their automobiles. Some of Nicholas Kristof’s points in his piece are rational, but others are not. Guns, like other consumer products, play an important part in America. They give the security that individuals and families require. however, Thugs have used the same firearms to murder innocent people, but Kristof does not mention this in the narrative he writes. Car accidents kill a lot of people, much like when improper people use weapons. This is not to say that automobiles or rifles are bad; rather, they fulfill the requirements of the human race when used responsibly.
