Gun Control Letter Rough Draft

Whether you are young or old, Republican or Democrat, or black or white, almost everyone has an opinion on gun control.  Should it be legal to carry guns? Should it not be legal?  This is a growing problem here in the U.S. and it’s time we face this problem head on.  Unfortunately, the prevention of gun control most likely would not lower the death rate.  It also would not stop killers from getting guns.  If it is truly what they desire, criminals will find a way to obtain a gun no matter what.  The real issue here is that citizens need to be able to protect themselves from shooters.

            Within just the past few months there have been mass shootings that have devastated our country.  One example of this was the Colorado movie theater shooting.  A total of 12 people died and 59 were injured.  Would this number have been different if civilians were allowed to carry guns?  Another example of a tragic shooting was the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.  Here, a total of 26 people died; 20 were students while 6 were adults.  We all know that it must take someone crazy and insane to do such a thing.  But that is my whole point.  These crazy people will not stop doing crimes if guns are banned.  Even if guns are illegal, killers will find ways to acquire one.  In 2011 when guns were supposedly “banned”, around 33,000 Americans died from gun-related incidents just in that year.  If killers cannot get their hands on a gun, they will use other various weapons such as knives and explosives.  It has been proven that something as simple as a household pen can be used as a weapon.  Therefore, the death rate would most likely not increase or decrease depending on guns.  But there is a chance that we could maybe stop or prevent such horrific crimes if citizens were allowed to carry guns on them.

            While Obama’s plan to prevent gun violence addresses the need for background checks on all gun purchases, it simply would not be enough to stop a potential killer.  Just from the two incidents previously mentioned, the killers did not have a troubled background that would require them to be denied the right to a gun.  I know that it makes me extremely uncomfortable knowing that sick people such as these killers are walking around with guns on them.  Thus, I would want to be able to protect myself against someone like this.

My main goal in this letter is to address the matters at hand.  This includes the problem of mass shootings taking places more frequent than not.  Because of that, I am not saying that people should be allowed to carry automatic guns.  The definition of these types of guns states: “A firearm that reloads itself and keeps firing until the trigger is released.”  These types of guns simply are not necessary for civilians own.  The types of guns I think should be legal are ones that are made merely for protection.  For example, that includes guns such as pistols and rifles.  These guns would enable you to defend yourself under an attack, yet they would not be out of control and in constant fire like automatic guns.  The types of guns I recommend are also the ones that the second amendment supports.  This amendment clearly states that if needed for protection, people have the right to bear arms.  The second amendment was written way before automatic guns were even invented.  Therefore, I think there should be a law excluding these weapons from the public.

What’s to stop people from leading a shooting everyday with or without the prevention of guns?  Nevertheless, my point is that we might be able to defend ourselves as well as others if citizens could carry guns on them.  While self-defense is always a possibility if one is being attacked by a criminal, many victims would not be able to take on and fight the attacker.  Sadly, that leaves them helpless and in danger.  All my life I have grown up in an extremely small town with a total of approximately 1,860 people.  When I go to a big city or someplace I am not comfortable, I literally have a fear of what could happen.  Life is a precious thing and should not be taken for granted.  Before we know it, our lives or the lives of a loved one could end suddenly.  We need to take every precaution that we can to save lives.

When saying that citizens should be allowed to carry guns on them I am thinking about the safety of our people.  No matter how hard we try, our officials cannot stop all killers and shooters from doing what they wish.  It simply can’t be done.  Guns were not originally designed for killing.  They were designed for protection.  Guns do not kill people, people kill people.  I am proposing that citizens should be allowed to carry guns on them purely for the reason of safety and protection.

Edna Pontillier

At the beginning of the novel Edna seemed very normal and simple.  She fell in love with a Creole man and then married.  The couple had children and lived a typical Creole life.  Once getting into the novel a little more we found out that she does not take care of her children the way Leonce wants her to.  He believes that the children should be her number one priority.  While I do somewhat agree with that, I also think that Edna was not acting out by letting her children have some freedom.  But as the novel progressed, we continued to learn more in debt about Edna's character.  She started to do some things that were against the Creole society.  For example, in chapter 17 Edna did not follow her usual routine of greeting and entertaining the guests that would show up at her house on Tuesday afternoons.  Leonce reacted to this by saying, "Why, my dear, I should think you'd understand by this time that people don't do such things; we've got to observe les convenances if we ever expect to get on and keep up with the procession.  If you felt that you had to leave home this afternoon, you should have left some suitable explanation for your absence."  I personally do not find what she did that big of a deal.  I'm sure it seemed so bad to Leonce because it was against what Creoles would do and because Edna was doing something different.  I was actually happy that Edna wasn't taking orders from Leonce and she stopped trying to constantly please him.  Now, after having read over half of the novel, at this point Edna has changed completely from the way she was at the beginning.  She is now lonely, troubled, and at times it seems like she is crazy.  This is when I start disliking Edna's character.  It seems as if she has gone over the edge and she doesn't care about anything anymore.  It is not just the Creole society she is opposing, it is more like human society.  Edna now is just a little too psychotic for me to like her.

If I was in Edna's situation I think I would act the way she started behaving more towards the beginning or middle of the novel.  If I did not believe in the Creole society, which I don't, then I would do minor things that followed my own personal views.  Edna knew that she was marrying a Creole man and that was her decision.  Therefore, if I was in the same position I wouldn't have done anything too drastic.  I wouldn't dare act the way Edna does more towards the end.  In chapter 29 it says, "Without even waiting for an answer from her husband regarding his opinion or wishes in the matter, Edna hastened her preparations for quitting her home on Esplanade Street and moving into the little house around the block."  It starts to seem like Edna is not just protesting the society, but she is also being disrespectful and selfish.  In my opinion, Edna does not need to act this way just to get her point across.  However, after saying all of that, you can look at this from both ways.  I'm sure if I was treated the way Edna had been for all those years I would be sick and tired of it.  At some point, I would probably reach a breaking point as well.  It just seems somewhat hard to support and agree with Edna's decisions unless you were truly actually in her same position.