WS-Gun Control Final

Gun Control

A very serious issue in the United States today is the subject of gun control. There is a debate between those who feel that the right to safety is impeded by lenient gun control laws, and those that believe the right to own guns is protected in the constitution. Both views are valid, as both are supported by the constitution. The Second Amendment 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.” Both sides of the debate respect the right to own guns. Many feel that gun ownership should be permitted strictly for the purpose of, if necessary, forming a militia. Those on the other side of the debate feel that this amendment’s ambiguous wording meant to allow gun ownership with relatively little regulation. The two sides of this argument spawn from a difference of interpretation, and this difference is what leads to polar views on the matter.

Harsher gun control laws will decrease the number of gun related accidents (1). This is the foundation of the argument of those in favor of stricter gun laws, and it is a valid one. Most of the people with this viewpoint have no problem with private gun ownership. Generally, objections occur in response to concealed weapons, assault weapons, and with how easy it is to obtain a gun. It is believed that guns are protected in the constitution strictly for the purposes of overthrowing the government if needed, and for self-protection. However, many studies that have been conducted indicate that weapons aren’t being used for the reasons defined in the constitution. An FBI crime report stated that out of the 30,000 gun-related deaths in the US in 2004, only 229 were justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms (1). This means that the vast majority of these shootings were conducted under illegal circumstances. Obtaining a firearm is a fairly simple procedure (6). In 1990, the Brady Bill was passed. This required a background check for each person purchasing a firearm. It also required a seven-day waiting period before a gun purchase, to allow a cool off period for those purchasing a firearm for illegal purposes (2). This waiting period was later declared unconstitutional, and is now left up to the states. These safety measures do prevent many criminals from purchasing firearms, but many people who aren’t already listed as criminals can misuse firearms just as easily. The problem, simply put, is that there are guns getting into the hands of criminals through illegal trafficking, and many of the people able to purchase guns are incapable of using them responsibly, as shown by numerous studies. From this viewpoint, it is necessary to pass more stringent gun laws to protect the innocent from the misuse of firearms.

Strict gun laws violate the second amendment, depending on interpretation, and prohibit Americans from protecting themselves properly. This foundation for the argument against strict gun laws is justified and supported. Most people with this school of thought feel that the ability to form an effective militia is slowly deteriorating as more gun laws are passed. Also, as stricter gun laws are passed, individuals are losing the ability to protect themselves effectively. Waiting periods and background checks prevent immediate protection, and only harm those who follow the rules. Criminals illegally obtain guns now, and there is no guarantee that more gun laws will keep them from obtaining guns in the future. Many feel that if the existing laws were enforced more effectively, guns would not be as much of a hazard and there would be no need more laws. Since 1993, the US government has spent over 300 million dollars on the National Instant Check System, and there are still many malfunctions in this system (3). If the laws currently in place were correctly implemented, there would not be a major problem with gun safety. It’s just a matter of inefficiency. Another key issue is the protection of citizens against the government. Even if guns lead to unnecessary deaths, they protect the American population from a possible tyrannical government. One of the first actions of Hitler was to seize the guns of the civilians (5). This prevented any real resistance from the population. This viewpoint is straightforward; strict gun laws simply restrict the rights of American citizens.

            The two major sides of this debate agree on many key issues. Both sides are seeking protection of the innocent and safety of the overall population.  However, the conflict arises when attempting to determine the best way to achieve a safer nation. For the issue of gun control, there isn’t an all or none answer. There are hundreds of laws relating to this subject, and each on requires individual consideration. The only way to devise a reasonable solution is to determine which values are the most important. Is money more important than safety? Is protection from a tyrannical government more important than the safety of the general population? For each issue, a balance must be found between safety, individual rights, personal freedoms, monetary implications, and a multitude of other factors. For each facet of gun control, the solution must benefit the general population. The resolutions need to lead to a safer nation without completely sacrificing individual protection.

            Guns are designed to be dangerous weapons. Regardless of whether a gun is used by a soldier, a hunter, a police officer, a criminal, or a storeowner, they are designed for the same purpose, to inflict harm. The owner of a gun is responsible for determining the manner in which the gun is used. A police officer with a gun is much different than a criminal with a gun. Gun safety ultimately lies in the hands of the owner. Unfortunately, there is no way to accurately determine how responsible a gun owner will be. An irresponsible parent could easily leave a firearm within reach of a child. An inept owner could accidentally shoot an innocent bystander. In 2001, there were 802 accidental firearm fatalities (1).  For this reason, numerous people believe that added firearm safety features would improve the welfare of the general population. On the other hand, the opposition feels that responsibility belongs to the gun owner. They believe that it is a parent’s responsibility to teach a child proper safety habits. Many safety features, such as external trigger locks, render the firearm useless if needed for immediate protection. Also, the number of accidental deaths is relatively low number when compared to other causes of death. For instance, more people die each year from drowning than from firearm accidents. More safety measures would make firearms more expensive as well. The issues at hand are safety, protection, and cost. In 2006, only 154 firearm fatalities by private citizens were substantiated legally (1). This amount is far superseded by accidental deaths. As a result, it appears to be most logical to require additional safety measures. This would be in the same realm as requiring seat belts or childproof medicine lids. They are all a little irritating, but they create a safer environment. Features such as internal trigger locks often prevent firearms from accidental misfires. Gun maker Smith and Wesson decided to include these trigger locks on all handguns. This is a reasonable safety measure that protects many people, allows the firearm to function adequately, and is inexpensive.

            Under current legal standards, gun owners do not have to register weapons in most states. Changing this would greatly improve law enforcement’s ability to monitor illegal firearm trafficking. Between one and three million firearms are thought to exchange hands in the secondary market each year without any regulation (1). If each firearm was registered, the government could keep track of each weapon, as well as monitor trends in illegal gun trafficking. Those in support of firearm registration hope to keep guns away from criminals. They also claim that responsible gun owners have nothing to worry about, as gun registration would only be used against criminals. Those against gun registration claim that it would violate individual rights. Under this policy, a certain group of people, gun owners, would be targeted. However, this requirement would prevent numerous criminals from obtaining weapons. In Great Britain, very strict gun laws are in place. In 2004, only 74 homicides where firearms were involved took place in England and Wales combined. In the United States, there were 11,344 (1). Based on this study, it would be justified to require gun registration. Gun registration would be inconvenient and infringe upon the privacy of gun owners. However, it would limit gun trafficking to criminals and create a safer country.

            In 1994, semiautomatic weapons were banned in the United States. Before this ban, semiautomatic weapons accounted for 4.82% of all firearms linked to crime. After the ban, only 1.61% of guns linked to crime were semiautomatic weapons, a 66% drop. However, this ban was not renewed in 2004 (1). Many believe the ban should be renewed strictly based on the uses of a semiautomatic weapon. They aren’t used for hunting, and they aren’t very practical for personal protection because of their size. The only conceivable function would be military engagement. The opposition claims that semiautomatic weapons would be vital if a militia was ever needed. Also, it could be the first step to total gun restriction by the government. Safety and protection from a tyrannical government are both considerations when determining the solution to this issue. It seems reasonable and necessary that these weapons should be banned. Based on the decrease in the number of semiautomatic weapons linked to crime, outlawing these weapons would be justifiable. They are only useful in a violent nature, and regardless how many semiautomatic weapons a militia possesses, they will most likely be defeated by the US military.

            Current Supreme Court rulings allow for little gun restriction. Both sides of the debate agree that the Supreme Court should have final say on the matter. It is true that if guns were less accessible, school shootings, suicides from firearms, criminal actions involving guns, and accidental deaths would occur less frequently. Many also feel that the constitution is outdated in regards to firearms. They feel that the Constitution was written in a much different time, and there is no need for a militia in this modern age. However, because of past Supreme Court rulings, these arguments are null. Those against firearm restrictions believe that values should be taught so that people can be responsible with weapons, rather than to restrict the weapons themselves. Regardless, this debate cannot, at the moment, be easily solved or summarized. It is multi-faceted, and until the Supreme Court clearly defines the second amendment, no real consensus will be reached. The Supreme Court is currently ruling on the legality of Washington, D.C. banning handguns from the city. The decision will serve as a precedent for many similar cases. In hearing this case, the Court will be forced to interpret the Second Amendment. The ruling should to be made by the end of June 2008. After a resolution is made, there will be some basis for the gun law debate. 

WS-Deforestation

Deforestation 

            The rainforests have often been described as the lungs of the Earth, but they are in fact, much more than that. They play a vital role in the production of oxygen and also serve as homes to an incredible amount of various plant and wildlife species. Perhaps the most pressing concern in relation to the degradation of the rainforests is the carbon dioxide buildup that will occur if no solution is agreed upon. Global warming, which is caused by a dramatic increase in greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, is a problem with no easy solution, but protecting the rainforests would be a great place to start. Unfortunately, it is a lot easier to talk about fixing the problem than it is to actually do something. There are a lot of factors that come into play such as international compliance and the effects of forest preservation on local economy and infrastructure. Plans are being developed, but arriving at a consensus will be difficult.

            According to the World Resource Institute, over eighty percent of the Earth’s natural forests have already been destroyed. Throughout the past quarter century, the rates have risen at a staggering rate. In 1980, rainforests were destroyed at almost thirty-four million acres a year. This number has risen to seventy-eight million acres per year, as determined by the Rainforest Action Network.  It is predicted that nearly all of the Earth’s unprotected forests will be gone by year 2050, along with everything that depends on them. If the practice of unregulated deforestation is continued at its current pace, there will be awful implications. The most obvious issue in relation to deforestation, of global warming, is a major concern and will most likely be the cause for change, but there are many other problems that also call for this change.

It is estimated that over half of the world’s plant and animal species occupy the Earth’s forests. The majority of these species have not yet been discovered, and it might stay that way. Other than the obvious ethical reasons, there are numerous incentives to preserve these species. An enormous number of plant and animal species are negatively impacted each day. The effects on the animal species involve the disruption of the delicate ecosystems. As the ecosystems to which the animals belong are destroyed, the balance of the food chain is disrupted and the habitats of these creatures are destroyed. The gene pools of these impacted animals are greatly diminished, which reduces the ability for adaptation in the future. The plant species in the rainforest are used for numerous medicinal purposes, and it is likely that many species of plants with healing effects are being destroyed. This is purely speculation, but the possibility is quickly disappearing along with the forests.

Indigenous people have been living in the rainforests for centuries, and depend on them heavily. The lifestyle’s of these people are being threatened, along with all of the knowledge that they possess. The indigenous inhabitants of the forests rely on their surroundings for food, water, medicine, and all of the necessities of life. They have lived in relative solitude for years, but their homes are being encroached upon. They are being exposed to diseases, pollutants, and disruptions that they have never seen before. The destruction of these forests could result in the extinction of a human population.

Plans for solving the problem of deforestation have been developed and instituted for years, but with relatively little success. In the past few years, deforestation rates have been declining, mainly due to increased environmental awareness and the threat of global warming, but the numbers are still incredible. The most prominent issue that would result from a forest preservation plan in the developing countries is the economic impact that would occur. In many of these countries, wood exportation is the largest economic influence. If this portion of the economy were diminished, there would be incredible job loss. This would result in a number of economical and infrastructural problems on a local and national scale. These factors must be accounted for when developing a plan. Many countries are implementing plans of their own such as Peru, which has created a plan to reforest over ten thousand hectares.  A conference concerning climate change was recently held in Bali, and was hosted by the Indonesian government. This meeting brought together representatives from over 180 countries, and was intended to develop a plan to combat climate change. Much progress was made, however a lot of work still remains. This was most certainly a step in the right direction. The World Bank introduced the Forest Carbon Fund, a proposal that could solve the deforestation issue. This plan puts a certain price on carbon emissions. Countries that reduce carbon emissions will be compensated appropriately by some of the more prosperous countries. This plan has incredible potential if it is handled properly. Some side effects of this plan would include job loss and negative economic impacts. These issues would need to be carefully handled. A lot of time and money would need to be invested into the training of those who will lose jobs. Money will have to be invested into the economies of these countries that have been impacted. There will have to be a worldwide effort to maintain the economies affected, and to help those whose jobs will be lost. With careful regulation, this plan could work very well. It is imperative that the people impacted must be taken care of. The input of the people who will be most influenced by this plan must weigh heavily into how the plan is implemented.

Deforestation is problem that can be fixed, but time is running out. With the continued efforts of environmentalists, and the monetary backing by certain prosperous nations, deforestation can be stopped, and eventually reversed. The preservation of the forests, and everything that depends on them is an important issue and is necessary for the future of the Earth. Plans such as the Forest Carbon Fund have great potential and are likely to be very successful, but only if they are carried out in a tactful manner that is sensitive to the countries and people that are impacted the most.

WS-Gun Control Brief

Gun Control Brief

PRO

1)    Safety of the population is important. Doesn’t care as much about protecting ourselves from government. 2^nd amendment outdated.

2)    Should have required firearm safety measures such as trigger locks.

3)    Should require gun owners to register guns           

4)    Should ban semiautomatic weapons.

These safety measures would help protect people from criminals and gun violence. Would help protect children from accidental gunshots.

AGAINST

1)    The 2^nd amendment allows citizens to carry firearms to protect themselves and the country from tyrannical government. Even though guns have negative effects, necessary for protection. Gun owners responsible for individual guns, and all shouldn’t be punished.

2)    Safety measures prevent gun owners from protecting themselves properly.

3)    Registration wrongfully targets all gun owners rather than those who actually do something wrong.

4)    Semiautomatic weapons are needed for militia purposes.

Protects individual rights and responsibility for weapons fall on owners rather than government intervention. 

SOLUTION

1)    Safety measures – needed because safety is more important. Seatbelts also are a hassle but prevent death and are accepted. Same principle.

2)    Registration – Needed to prevent illegal firearm trafficking.

3)    Semiautomatic weapons – Should be banned because they serve no purpose in civilian society.

WS-Gun Control Draft

 

Gun Control

 A very serious issue in the United States today is the subject of gun control. There is a debate between those who feel that the right to safety is impeded by lenient gun control laws, and those that believe the right to own guns is protected in the constitution. Both views are valid, as both are supported by the constitution. The Second Amendment 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.” Both sides of the debate respect the right to own guns. Many feel that gun ownership should be permitted strictly for the purpose of, if necessary, forming a militia. Those on the other side of the debate feel that this amendment’s ambiguous wording was intentional, and was meant to allow gun ownership with relatively little regulation. The two sides of this argument spawn from a difference of interpretation, and this difference is what leads to polar views on the matter.

Harsher gun control laws will decrease the number of gun related accidents. This is the foundation of the argument of those in favor of stricter gun laws, and it is a valid one. Most of the people with this viewpoint have no problem with private gun ownership. Generally, objections occur in response to concealed weapons, assault weapons, and with how easy it is to obtain a gun. It is believed that guns are protected in the constitution strictly for the purposes of overthrowing the government if needed, and for self-protection. However, many studies that have been conducted indicate that weapons aren’t being used for the reasons defined in the constitution. An FBI crime report stated that out of the 30,000 gun-related deaths in the US in 2004, only 229 were justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms. This means that the vast majority of these shootings were conducted under illegal circumstances. Obtaining a firearm is a fairly simple procedure. In 1990, the Brady Bill was passed. This required a background check for each person purchasing a firearm. It also required a seven-day waiting period before a gun purchase, to allow a cool off period for those purchasing a firearm for illegal purposes. This waiting period was later declared unconstitutional, and is now left up to the states. This does prevent many criminals from purchasing firearms, but many people who aren’t already listed as criminals can misuse firearms just as easily. The problem, simply put, is that there are guns getting into the hands of criminals through illegal trafficking, and many of the people able to purchase guns are incapable of using them responsibly. From this viewpoint, it is necessary to pass more stringent gun laws to protect the innocent from the misuse of firearms.

Strict gun laws will violate the second amendment and prohibit Americans from protecting themselves. This foundation for the argument against strict gun laws is justified and supported. Most people with this school of thought feel that the ability to form an effective militia is slowly deteriorating as more gun laws are passed. Also, individuals are losing the ability to protect themselves effectively. Waiting periods just make it more difficult to protect oneself. Waiting periods and background checks prevents immediate protection, and only harms those who follow the rules. More gun laws will only infringe upon the rights of honest citizens. Criminals illegally obtain guns now, and they will continue to illegally obtain guns regardless of the laws in place. The current laws should be enforced more effectively. Since 1993, the US government has spent over 300 million dollars on the National Instant Check System, and there are still many malfunctions in this system. If the laws currently in place were correctly implemented, there wouldn’t be a major problem with gun safety. It’s just a matter of inefficiency. Another key issue is the protection of citizens against the government. Even if guns lead to unnecessary deaths, they protect the American population from a possible tyrannical government. One of the first actions of Hitler was to seize the guns of the civilians. This prevented any real resistance from the population. This is a straightforward viewpoint. Gun laws simply restrict the rights of American citizens.

The two major sides of this debate agree on many key issues. Both sides are seeking protection of the innocent and safety of the overall population.  However, differences in opinion arise when determining the best way to obtain safety. Those in favor of strict gun laws are seeking change, whereas those in favor of lenient gun laws wish for things to remain the same and are defending their position. There are many key issues involving gun laws that both sides of the debate feel strongly about. Many feel that firearms should contain many safety features, in addition to those already present, to prevent those who cannot properly handle a firearm from causing harm. They feel that the instances when a child, or anyone for that matter, is killed by accidental gunfire are devastating enough to require more safety features on guns. The counter to this argument is that governmental regulation is not needed here. Parents should be held accountable for proper discretion, protection, and education of children concerning firearms. Excess safety features prevent responsible gun users from protecting themselves properly. Another argument is that all gun owners should be required to register their firearms with the government, so that the gun owners are ultimately held responsible for their weapons. This would greatly assist law enforcement, as they would have records of who has purchased what firearm. Criminals would be the only ones impacted by this. Those against this argue that this targets a certain population and infringes upon their rights. This requirement would violate the privacy of gun owners. Many people also feel that semi-automatic firearms are overkill and therefore should be banned. Automatic weapons were banned in the 1990’s and have had drastic effects. Very few people would hunt with a semi-automatic weapon, restricting the use to military engagements. They are of no legal, practical use and should be outlawed. The response to this is that the government should not be allowed to determine which types of weapons serve as adequate protection. If semi-automatic weapons were banned, and the government needed to be overthrown, the US military would have much more firepower than a militia could.

In order for a consensus to be achieved, both sides are going to have to sacrifice some ground. In the near future at least, guns will never be completely banned, and some gun laws will always exist. The important thing is that the nation as a whole needs to benefit from the consensus. Even though the debate consists mainly of two completely polarized opinions, not every citizen feels as strongly. The decisions should lead to a safer country, without sacrificing protection. The key issues that have been discussed only make up a small portion of the firearm issues that exist. They represent a variety of the aspects of this debate. Concerning the debate over safety features, I feel that more should be required. This would really be no different than safety tops on medicine bottles and household cleaners or certain states requiring residents to wear seatbelts. All of these things may be nuisances, but they protect and save lives.  The same reasoning should be put behind gun control, to a certain degree. If too many safety measures are present, the firearms will be useless. Gun maker Smith and Wesson recently decided to include trigger locks on all future guns. I think these should be required. Some people want guns to be fingerprint sensitive to ensure that the gun owner is the only one who can fire the weapon. This seems over the top and would greatly increase the price of guns. However, minor safety features should be added to firearms and would be a fair compromise. Another argument is over requiring gun owners to register their weapons with the government. This would assist law enforcement in tracking down criminals, but it would violate personal rights of gun owners. This seems to fall along the same lines as racial profiling. A certain population is targeted for making a legal purchase. On the other hand, firearms are major purchases. They are potentially deadly machines that should be dealt with carefully. In my opinion, I do not believe that gun owners should be required to register their weapons. Under current gun laws, this shouldn’t be required. Unless the Supreme Court changes the current standards, I feel that it would violate personal rights to require gun registration with the government. The debate over semi-automatic weapons concerns the nature in which this type of weapon would be used. The only conceivable use for the weapon would be military engagement. I feel that it is over the top and should be banned. Only harm could come from it. The argument that it would be useful in a militia, I feel, is moot. On one side, yes it is a useful weapon in combat. However, in my opinion, the US military is strong enough to defeat any militia, regardless of how many semi-automatic weapons the militia possessed, and I think they should be banned from the civilian population.

Current Supreme Court rulings allow for little gun restriction. Both sides of the debate agree that the Supreme Court should have final say on the matter. It is true that if guns were less accessible, school shootings, suicides from firearms, criminal actions involving guns, and accidental deaths would occur less frequently. Many also feel that the constitution is outdated in regards to firearms. They feel that the Constitution was written in a much different time, and there is no need for a militia in this modern age. However, because of past Supreme Court rulings, these arguments are null. Those against firearm restrictions believe that values should be taught so that people can be responsible with weapons, rather than to restrict the weapons themselves. Regardless, this debate cannot, at the moment, be easily solved or summarized. It is multi-faceted, and until the Supreme Court clearly defines the second amendment, no real consensus will be reached. The Supreme Court is currently ruling on the legality of Washington, D.C. banning handguns from the city. The decision will serve as a precedent for many similar cases. In hearing this case, the Court will be forced to interpret the Second Amendment. The ruling should to be made by the end of June 2008. After a resolution is made, there will be some basis for the gun law debate. 

WS-News Satire Paper

            News Satire is a spoof of news broadcasts that has proven to be extremely effective. There are several successful news satires currently running such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, and “Weekend Update” on Saturday Night Live. Satire is a form of rhetoric that reveals the flaws of something through the use of ridicule, irony, and other methods of mockery in order to bring about change. Generally, the purpose of a news satire is to provide a social commentary, reveal the assumptions of a particular viewpoint, and criticize the way certain things are done, all while providing entertainment. News satires tend to expose problems rather than provide solutions. They also keep the viewer up to date on recent events and major stories, although generally, this is done in a satirical, humorous manner.

 News Satires are generally anchored by intelligent, well-dressed people that appear trustworthy. They look almost exactly like the typical news-anchor. The major difference lies in the material presented, and how it is presented. The stories covered in news satires are similar to the stories covered in actual broadcasts; only satires are biased and mocking. A news satire generally begins with an introduction of the anchor. In the Colbert Report, the introduction is extremely over the top, overly patriotic, and arrogant. The focus is on Colbert with American symbols in the background. Phrases such as “warrior poet” scroll through the background. This parodies introductions to many news broadcasts. Conventional news music often plays in the introduction, which continues the appearance of a normal news broadcast. The audience is shown or heard, and the show begins, probably for the same reason as a sit-com or other television programs. The audience’s laughter gives the show a more enthusiastic feeling, as well as makes the shows more informal. When an audience laughs, it’s easier for a home viewer to laugh as well. The shows normally begin with a monologue, which is meant to be funny and captivating to viewers. The anchors set the theme for the rest of the show by introducing major stories that will be covered.  Jon Stewart for example, introduces himself and his guests, makes a few quick jokes, and moves into the rest of the show. This monologue provides an introduction to the rest of the show as well as leads into the news segments. The remainder of the show involves over the top journalists reporting ridiculous stories, and the anchor reporting and mocking events and stories. Many times, the anchor interviews a guest. Stephen Colbert, for example, responds sarcastically. He manipulates this sarcasm in order to support his views. At the end, the anchors sign off of the show with a trademark such as The Daily Show, which ends with John Stewart talking to Stephen Colbert. The anchors often reveal the guests who will appear on the next show and the credits roll.

WS-Deforestation Brief

Deforestation is occurring at an excessive rate. If nothing is done, the rainforests will be destroyed.

1)    An unknown number of species rely on the rainforest for protection and food. As the forests are destroyed, so are the habitats of these animals.

2)    Plants of extraordinary medical value are destroyed constantly through deforestation methods.

3)    After an area is deforested, it is used for agriculture until the soil is useless. As a result, it will likely never be able to support the rainforest again leaving gaping holes in the forest.

Humans also depend on the rainforest for jobs and food. The agriculture and clear-cutting provides jobs. The countries where these forests are depend on them for money. Wood exportation is the primary source of income for many Central American countries.

 A solution needs to consider those who depend on the rainforest while reducing the environmental impact of deforestation by regulating it.

Carbon credits???

 

WS-Toulmin Method

Toulmin Method

Amber Young- Capital Punishment: Society’s Self Defense

 Claim: “…capital punishment is necessary for the safety and well-being of the general populace.”

            Qualifier: “…society has the right to execute…”

            Exception: “…the guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

 Reason 1: “Capital punishment is societies means of self defense.”

            Amber Young says that capital punishment is societies way of protecting itself from murderers. She says that if Colorado had killed Ted Bundy, all of the girls in Florida would not have been killed. This is not a good reason though because he was only convicted of kidnapping in Colorado. Regardless of capital punishment, Ted Bundy would have eventually gone free. Basically, the entire support system of her essay is irrelevant.

 Reason 2: “The preservation of life, any life…. is not an absolute value for most people.”

            Amber uses the loss of life in the military, as well as deaths caused by automobile accidents to support her claim that people value some things more than life. From her perspective, if capital punishment isn’t instituted, then cars should be outlawed because people are killed as a result of them quite often. These comparisons are very different, almost to the point of making the argument ridiculous. Comparing automobile accidents to lethal injections makes no sense. However, it is true that in the bigger picture, some things are more important than life. But, Amber never really gives a good explanation of what can be gained by capital punishment.

 Reason 3: “…many prisoners would prefer to die than to languish in prison.”

            This is a huge generalization. I’m sure that there are plenty of people who would rather not be executed. All of the sudden, Amber decides to show some sort of demented compassion to the guilty, which is a pretty weak attempt to support the overall argument.

 Refutation:

 The possibility of executing an innocent person is one of her concerns. Amber refutes by claiming that it isn’t very likely, and some innocent people might have to be killed for the greater good.

The founding fathers didn’t specify whether the right to life, or liberty is more important, so it isn’t unconstitutional. Amber claims that safety and self-defense are the most important parts of the constitution. This is just one opinion however, and she provides no real explanation as to why her opinion is the correct one.