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, 2) construct your one response by Wednesday, and 3) post the final response by Friday, midnight. If you have questions, please let me know.
Let's first start off with Pierce (Media), his thesis is that the public does not need an AR-15 to protect themselves from an attacker when they can use a smaller caliber weapon that will do the same job. Josh's (Former Marine)thesis is that we have the right as citizens under the second amendment to protect ourselves by any means possible. As much as I hate to say it Pierce uses the best tactics because he uses strong logical and emotional points although he does not have the experience like Josh has. Pierce uses the children to get you to think twice about the need of an AR-15 and how they do not need to be carrying one and they should not have to worry about being murdered while at school and he also uses the Aurora shooting as an anti AR-15 example. If I were Josh I would hold my ground on the fact that if we continue to allow the government to argue that we do not need weapons "designed to kill" then how are we as a public citizen going to protect ourselves and our family from a criminal who will undoubtedly have a gun that is "designed to kill."
ReplyDeleteI too didn't like agreeing with Pierce on his point of view because I think that what Boston was saying held a lot of truth and because I'm all for the second amendment, but pierce did lay down a better argument that focused better on his thesis than Bostons did. Plus the children thing is great ammo on this topic.
DeleteYeah Peirce seemed to rely heavily on emotions, like the media does all of the time. I think that this topic will be hot for a very long time and there will be people on either side of the line but I think that if we do not make a stand on this subject then we will just continue to allow our government to roll over us with new legislation that will slowly take away our rights as citizens.
DeleteI too disagreed with Piers Morgan's perspective, but give him the award for the strongest argument-AR-15s do not belong in American civil society. Josh Brown was clearly the wrong person to interview, but I believe he was picked for just that reason. In CNN's mind, it would help to solidify the case against AR-15s, by having an ill-prepared and poor orator on the show. Piers heavily poured on the emotional tear drops by calling attention to Sandy Hook and other events to vividly build a case against AR-15s. Unfortunately, Josh Brown could not counter Piers's comments and loaded questions, by turning the tables on Piers. Lastly, you are correct, this is one of many incidences that is slowly chipping away our civil liberties, particularly the right to bear arms.
DeleteI totally agree with Peirce Morgan and he held his argument up in the air the whole time, I believe that Boston had no idea where is argument was headed or he was just nervous to the point that his ideas never got finished. I do agree that Pierce was more emotional or personal, but she did have some factual arguments in his part.
DeleteBoston thesis would be that Senator Finestone legislation would stop him from being able to hand his Ar15 down to his children there for disarming future generations and taking away their second amendment rights. Pierce thesis is the public does not need a large round rifle like the AR-15 to protect themselves and can use a smaller weapon that has les rounds and does less damage. Pierce presented the best tactics and supported his argument with a statement from Senator Finestone and a video from Gen Stanly McChrystal. I think the Generals video did the most damage to Boston’s argument because he and the General are both war veterans and know more about the guns and the capability of them. Boston should have come to the interview with facts like 8% of crimes committed by offenders are visibly armed with a gun. The problem is that I don’t believe that Pierce understands that Boston has no problem registering his AR15 but more with not being able to hand them down to his children. As far as using a car as a reference he could have said I don’t “need” my AR any more than Rosa Parks “needed” to sit in the front of that bus, it is a right they both should have.
ReplyDeleteI think your supporting sentence at the end really made a valid point. We as citizens on the United States of America have certain freedoms that have been granted to us since the revolutionary war. As we may not "need" to own such large caliber guns it is our right as a citizen to keep ourselves and our family safe at whatever the cost. I too feel like the video with the high ranking general did some serious damage to the pro gun support however it does not change the fact that by allowing our government to take away a certain type of weapon out of the hands of citizens we are slowing giving up on our rights as a citizen. Pierce certainly gave a good presentation on why the gun should by using extremely emotional situations rather the facts. I feel that the outcome could have come out better had Josh brought in some serious facts like you have stated.
DeleteI am glad you liked that last sentence. I don't think that we "need" large guns but I think it is our right. Also, how many criminals are going to obtain their weapons legally, and then go about registering it. So, what is the thought process in a criminals mind, "Oh I would like to go out on a shooting rampage oh no I can't this weapon is registered!" that's never going to happen.
DeleteThat is a very valid point. Bad guys do not and will continue to not follow the law regardless of the punishment. They know that criminal organizations can easily get there hands on this type of gun regardless of the laws so why can't I as an American Citizen carry the same type of gun to protect myself? This whole thing just does not make sense to me but I do know that this law is a horrible idea.
DeleteI think we should be aloud to carry a gun if we are of sound mind. I surly know some people that I would not be OK with them having a gun. I ran across this 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
Delete• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]
This shows how a gun could scare off a criminal to where the owner of the gun does not have to use it.
Casey, great effort on finding those statistics. If true, this adds credence to the argument that citizens should have and need to carry weapons in an effort to protect themselves and others. Moreover, the 2nd amendment goes beyond personal freedoms; it was established specifically to give the citizens, the means to resist a tyrannical government which abandoned its principles and exceeded its authorities. Things that many anti-gun politicians and news outlets leave out.
DeletePierce thesis is that he believes that you don't need AR-15 or AK to protect yourself, but smaller weapons are sufase. Boston thesis is that have the senator legislation pass makes the impacted that he cant pass down a weapon to his kids, or have the right to even have such weapon, AR 15. I believe that Pierce had better prepared for this argument then Boston did, Boston had random remarks like "I don't need a car" but really didn't have anything to back it up with. Pierce had many tactics up his sleeve, like showing a way higher rank from the marines also explain that those weapons are pretty much made for warfare not everyday life, Then went on to explain how kids don't need to be worried that they are gonna get shoot up in school. So Pierce defiantly went with a video that can be based upon facts, and defiantly had emotion mean mentioning the kids and Boston just wasn't has prepared. I believe that Boston could have made his point across better, was by making better comebacks or just supported them better. When he states that he doesn't need a car but we still have one he could have gone on explaining that its very much necessary in everyday life.
ReplyDeleteYour definetly right that Boston wasn't as prepared for that as pierce was. And you were also right that he could of totally supported his statements a lot better instead of just stating things and not finishing what he stated such as the "you don't need a car" thing. All along Boston was kind of set up to lose because Pierce brought up that the former Marine who had a higher rank also agreed that civilians don't need weapons made for killing.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe media’s main point is to limit the type of guys people should be allowed to own. Of course it is, the government funds the media and thus they have to support the ideas of the government. While Boston’s point of view, is that of any American with a gun. “I should be allowed to own any type of gun I wish because; the 2nd amendment says I can!” Sadly, most of the time you tell an American they can’t own or do something, our two year old selves come out and whine and cry and demand we can.
DeleteThe media does a good job at getting a very inexperienced talker – one not use to being asked questions about his ideas – who plays right into the hands of the media. The media turns Boston’s argument against himself to make their stand point seem even that much better. The idea of disarming the “general public” or limiting the type of firearms they can own. Thus, allowing the government to have other means to “enslave” the people of the United States.
Those who wish to do harm to others very rarely follow rules and laws, as there will always be a means to do evil in this world. Life is not like the movies or stories we read, good does not always triumph over evil. Taking away the 2nd amendment is just evil (government) manipulating the minds of the masses to gain even more control and power.
While I agree with some points you have presented, I do have a rebuttal to other points. While it seemed Boston was not an experienced talker, I think the bigger picture is that he wasn't prepared. He was chosen because of a letter he sent to the senator that went viral on the internet. If you read the letter (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/07/read-u-s-marine-joshua-boston-pens-letter-to-sen-dianne-feinstein-in-response-to-proposed-gun-control-legislation/) he seems fairly well spoken, which leads back to what I said before about not being prepared. The media didn't turn Boston's argument against him, Boston did it himself with poor counterarguments that were all over the place, open-ended and/or not backed by any factual data.
DeleteThe other part is what you said at the end. They're not taking away the 2nd amendment, they're amending it. Guess how everybody got that right to bear arms in the first place, the amending of the Constitution, aka the Bill of Rights.
You are correct, bad choice of words on my end, they are not taking it away, just changing it. However, this is just the start. The government for years has been trying to get 100% control over the US without the citizens really noticing it. They have switched to brain washing our children in schools, brain washing it's citizens to constantly spend spend and spend and that being in "debt" is the American way.
DeleteThey are now attempting to disarm any weapons that are able to stand up against an Army. They want the US citizens to be only able to bring a "knife to a gun fight," for if and when that time comes in the future.
Why did Boston's letter go viral? Because the media allowed it too, why? They knew latter on in his interview that he would fail and play right into the overall goal the media and government has planned.
Yes, the government wants the american people to spend money, but that's the general idea that keeps any economy going. Spending puts money into the economy - global, national, or local - which in turn creates jobs, more money spent means more need for employees. More need for employees means more people which means expansion. Expansion means more spending. It's a cycle that's there for any economy to grow, in debt or not, with or without government. As far as the government and their control, yes they have been trying and the sad thing is, they don't even really hide it anymore. Most things the government does it does out in the open but due to the american people not paying enough attention it goes without being noticed. A prime example is Obamacare, everybody knows about it, however, most people don't know about the full extent of it because they haven't looked into it. People know what they know because the media has told them it. If they read the actual document behind Obamacare they'd know more, such as that under it all illegal immigrants are covered, or the fact that major medical operations will be decided under the importance of the individual to society as deemed by the government. Another fine example is the recent attempts by the gov't to regulate our use of the internet, not many people know about it, or if they do, they don't know the extent. Why? because the media hasn't reported it, so in turn the people don't know about it. This has nothing to do with the gov't trying to cover it up though, it has everything to do with the fact that people these days get all their information from the media, and if it's not in the media then it not important. It's laziness is all that is.
DeleteYou made me wait on purpose! I feel the <3!
DeleteYou made a valid point that Americans, rely on the media to provide its information for them. Thus, a system is now in place that unless the media talks about it that it’s not important to most Americans. However, who owns the media? The government, so they have gotten at least some of the control that they want. Although, I would much rather live in America then I would in other countries. North Korea being a fine example of a government gone way wrong and a country that allowed their government 100% control. Let’s just hope America doesn't walk down that same path.
Other thing that bothers me about the government is that it’s based on a failed system. We know that this system does not work as we can look at how this system played for the Roman Empire. It didn't work in the past and it won’t work in the future. When you don’t limit the time that people can have power that power corrupts them and thus the system self-implodes.
I agree that the government made pierce say everything so that way it can look better plus it helps when the media does get someone like Boston who isn't use to being asked all the questions and have to support them. The government would totally do everything it can to win and I think it would totally start another revolution in america when we'd fight the government that dictates our lives and hope to gain our independence back. I mean after all they say history does repeat itself
DeleteIts human nature, sadly.. Einstein was once quoted saying "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
DeletePiers Morgan made a strong argument downplaying the American desire to own AR-15s, claiming they are not necessary to preserve self defense, and that they only belong on the battlefield, as they are only used for mass destruction. Confronting Piers Morgan’s arguments, Joshua Brown defended his belief that Americans can own AR-15s, as they are not of the same lethal capability that Piers argues. Unfortunately, Piers Morgan made a better argument. He used elements of pathos, ethos, and skewed elements of logos to portray that AR-15s have no place in American society, particularly schools and other public and private settings. Piers Morgan, possessing decades of journalism experience, inaccurately represented the AR-15’s capability and heavily used pathos to discredit Joshua Brown’s argument. It was interesting watching Piers’s closing remarks, where he reiterated his opinion on outlawing AR-15s outside of the military.
ReplyDeleteCounter argument: It is true that the shootings across the country are tragic acts of murder, however, the overwhelming number of responsible gun owners engage in no such activities. In fact, despite the large number of firearms in circulation, the actual frequency and number of incidences, is very low compared to the number of firearms in circulation across the country. While some may argue against the need for citizens to own AR-15s, the U.S. Constitution preserves the right of Americans to bear arms. That simple civil liberty is in place for one purpose; to provide citizens the means to resist a tyrannical government that abandons its principles and exceeds its authorities. Some in the media and government, like Senator Diane Feinstein, seem to ignore that fact, and would rather chastise responsible gun owners, instead of passing legislation that would keep guns out of those who are unfit to own them.
To my disappointment, Joshua Brown made a series of weak counterattacks, many of which lacked fact, were poorly organized, and were ineffectively delivered. This made him easy prey for Piers Morgan.
Piers Morgan's thesis is that assault weapons are not neccessary in the homes of American's. He brings on a strong argument over that of former marine, Joshua Boston, arguing that there is no benfit of civilians owning AR-15's. Morgan also uses the example of the Aurora movie theater shooting to prove his point on why people don't need assault weapons. Boston's thesis was that it is his and fellow Americans' right to carry guns, according to the 2nd Ammendment. Boston also says that American's know when to hold fire and are not trigger happy. Although, Boston had some credible points, he didn't hold up against the argument of Piers Morgan. Morgan was very tactical in shooting down every argument that Boston tried to make. I initially thought Joshua Boston was doing a great job in defending American's rights to bear arms, however he quickly became the underdog in the discussion.
ReplyDeleteWell he became the underdog in the news story by design. The media picked the weakest speaker they could find, in order to be able to get their point across a lot easier. News today is not so much about informing the US citizens, but instead, a means to manipulate the masses. Very rarely are news channels really demonstrating the truth behind a matter, as they have become nothing more than a tool; owned and controlled by the government. Honestly attempting to disarm Americans, is only going to disarm those who are the law abiding ones.
DeleteI do agree that Boston came to the table with no evidence to support his thesis. However, he was walking into media circus. They already had their videos and examples ready to go. I feel that Boston's thesis was that he was not that he has a problem registering his guns, but he could not pass them down to his children or others in his family in the event of this death.
DeleteThe reporter firmly believed that guns that carry large rounds of amunition should be banned to the general public. The man being interviewed disagrees with him, he belives that the general public should be more educated about guns and that any one should be allowed to own any type of gun. The man that the reporter was intrviewing used explaination and comparasion when defending his belief. So being a listener hearing this news broadcast I do agree with him. I would also exercise my right to own any gun I liked. The reporter kept interrupting the former marine as he spoke alomst like an intergration tactic. This kept the former marine replys short and not fully explained.I would have liked the former marine to have been prepared with more factual evidence as a viewer.
ReplyDeletePierce’s thesis is that there is no reason to own an assault rifle and as such should be banned for ownership to the public. Joshua’s thesis is that there shouldn’t be a limit to gun ownership.. I think. It seemed to change from people should not be limited in their ownership of assault rifles (in this instance the ability to let his children inherit one) to people shouldn’t be limited in their ownership of AR-15’s to concealed gun ownership and then back to assault rifle ownership. Pierce is better supported with his arguments. One of his ways of supporting his argument is by showing a video of a higher ranking officer, General Stanley McChrystal, supporting his argument. I also don’t think that Joshua clearly understands what the actual topic of this debate is, which just boosts the argument of the opposition (Pierce).
ReplyDeleteI can’t make a counterargument to Pierce however, sorry, but I can’t. When it comes to gun control I’m middle of the road. I was trained in the military on gun use and safety, I had to take proficiency tests on both M16’s and 9MM’s throughout my career. I don’t like guns and I don’t really like having them around me but I’m also not going to tell someone else that they can’t have them. I’ve seen plenty of people be stupid with guns in the news and throughout my life. On the other side I’ve known plenty of people who were/are responsible gun owners. When it comes to gun control I’m also a realist. Is putting bans on gun ownership going to stop gun related crimes? Probably not. Lessen them? Maybe. However, just to make an argument I think that if people are educated in safety, handling and firing of a weapon there is no need to own an assault rifle…unless the zombie apocalypse happens.
As far as what Joshua could do to strengthen his argument, if I were in his shoes, first I’d probably stick with one thesis and maybe, just maybe, pick the topic the debate is about (Assault rifle ownership). When Pierce starts using examples of assault rifle shootings or when he presents the video of the General, refer back to the first step. Realize that the topic is on assault rifles in general, not specifically the AR-15. There are actually 157 different kinds of assault weapons that would be banned as a result of the ban. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/25/assault-weapons-ban-hearing-senate/1947233/) One other thing I definitely wouldn’t do is bring up the open-ended argument of comparing cars to guns, it’s an uneducated argument that has no bearing to the topic at hand.
Did you here the response fom the former marine when he stated what if someone has multiple attackers? Could a simple hand gun or pistol do the job? Although I agree the former marine jumped around using many differnt explanations and examples for the questions he replied to.
DeleteI heard the response about the multiple attackers, but had the person been trained properly in the use of firearms and knew what she was doing it wouldn't have mattered. She had, what, like 5/6 bullets? If she knew how to fire the weapon with any type of skill she would have only needed 1 bullet per person.
DeleteIf someone is being attacked by multiple people having a automatic weapon is the worse thing to have. Panic is going to overcome the person and then they are going to pull the trigger and spray. Which is going to lead lots of stay bullets exiting the area, which could then lead to the possibility of many people being hurt. Other people in the house, neighbors being wounded, etc.. etc..
DeletePlease don't claim that being trained in the firearm changes that panic pull and hold problem. I seen many army guys panic under pressure and do the same.
Pierce; the fellow with the British accent. His thesis was that Americans don't need an AR-15 to be sold to them because it can be to much of a deadly weapon. As Boston; The former Marine. His thesis was that the 2nd Amendment states that we are allowed to bare arms and shouldn't have to have our assault rifles taken from the U.S. citizens. I do believe that Pierce stood stronger to his thesis and could back it up more by bringing up the Holmes Aurora shooting and how the killer had an assault rifle that let off 17 bullets in minutes and can cause harm to children in school like the sandy hook shooting. You can run a background check on someone and go further into depth on weather a certain individual is worth enough to have an assault rifle, not just take all of them away because someone doesn't know how to use it. When parenting when one child does something wrong like hit another child with a baseball bat because they got mad playing baseball, you don't take the bat away from all the children and end the game, you punish the one that did wrong and have them pay the consequence. I do think that Boston had a good point that we should be better educated on the weapons we own before we purchase them but he could have stood a little stronger to his thesis and presented a better argument other then what if multiple intruders attacked you and you run out of ammo with your hand gun.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree that Joshua Boston didn't know the topic of the interview, I just think he was under a lot of pressure and that affected the way he was presenting his points on the right to own assault weapons. Piers Morgan also had the upper hand because he was the one asking the questions. I do agree that he shouldn't have brought up the comparison to a car because it has nothing to do with the topic.
ReplyDeleteI think you have some valid points, but can go a little farther. Unfortunately, for those who hold their civil liberties dearly, Joshua Brown was clearly not the right person to be interviewed on national TV, especially on such a highly controversial topic. Piers Morgan, a career journalist and TV celebrity, clearly had the advantage. CNN unfortunately showed their colors when they asked the worst representative of the firearms community to defend their motivations, purely for the amusement of those loyal CNN fans watching.
Delete