The Morality and Politics of Justice-
Morality and Politics of Justice Reflection:
For this project we were challenged to address a current issue and write an op-ed to back-up our perspective. After writing the op-ed we created “political campaign posters” to act as a visual piece to draw in people. We also had to have a connection to a moral philosophy in our op-ed and a quote from a philosopher on our visual. In class we focused on four moral philosophies- libertarianism, utilitarianism, Rawls: Justice as Equality, and deontology. One of the first steps following choosing a topic was to write a thesis, which was then critiqued by classmates.
One challenging aspect of this project that lead to a lot of personal growth for me was the exhibition. At the exhibition, the community came to discuss our projects with us, and when they found a hole in the argument of a student they took it upon themselves to dissect every aspect of their perspective. Having evidence and being well informed of both sides of the issue was the only way for students to confidently, accurately convey their perspective in a meaningful way. Because this exhibition was a bit intimidating, it motivated me to be as educated as possible on all viewpoints of my topic. I realized that this is important when approaching any project because without being informed it is easy to overlook details that may actually be very influential in arguments.
I believe my op-ed is strong in the evidence category of the rubric because I use a variety of types of evidence, relevant evidence, and have evidence to support all of my claims. Specifically, I believe that using the 2nd amendment as evidence to support the justification of citizens legally possessing guns was very valuable in providing my essay with credibility. In choosing my evidence I considered ethos, logos, and pathos. My visual is very refined and I believe it clearly correlates with the perspective of my op-ed. I had to sort out several different ideas and concepts when planning my visual to maintain a clear message and have good rhetorical impact. I spent a lot of time refining my slogan (“Let’s Practice Peace to Stop Flashing These”) and I believe that without those words my perspective would be unclear. The category that my op-ed needs the most refinement in is organization because I believe with some time, I could arrange my paragraphs in a more logical and thought-provoking manner. Currently similar ideas are not grouped together. One positive change would be placing paragraphs that address evidence supporting the opposite viewpoint of my op-ed together.
If I had another week to refine my project, I would spend it editing my op-ed. Although I received two peer-critiques as well as feedback from Ashley, I believe there is room for further enhancement especially in the organizational aspect of it. My final draft is definitely much more thorough than previous drafts and I believe I could have enhanced it further if I had spent more time and possibly received an additional critique. If I were to do this project again, I would purchase a smaller poster board for my visual or find a better way to cut my current board because the space on it is utilized as much as it could be. My poster is refined and I am very proud of it, but I had originally planned on cutting it down but wasn’t able to find a method that looked professional and refined.
For this project we were challenged to address a current issue and write an op-ed to back-up our perspective. After writing the op-ed we created “political campaign posters” to act as a visual piece to draw in people. We also had to have a connection to a moral philosophy in our op-ed and a quote from a philosopher on our visual. In class we focused on four moral philosophies- libertarianism, utilitarianism, Rawls: Justice as Equality, and deontology. One of the first steps following choosing a topic was to write a thesis, which was then critiqued by classmates.
One challenging aspect of this project that lead to a lot of personal growth for me was the exhibition. At the exhibition, the community came to discuss our projects with us, and when they found a hole in the argument of a student they took it upon themselves to dissect every aspect of their perspective. Having evidence and being well informed of both sides of the issue was the only way for students to confidently, accurately convey their perspective in a meaningful way. Because this exhibition was a bit intimidating, it motivated me to be as educated as possible on all viewpoints of my topic. I realized that this is important when approaching any project because without being informed it is easy to overlook details that may actually be very influential in arguments.
I believe my op-ed is strong in the evidence category of the rubric because I use a variety of types of evidence, relevant evidence, and have evidence to support all of my claims. Specifically, I believe that using the 2nd amendment as evidence to support the justification of citizens legally possessing guns was very valuable in providing my essay with credibility. In choosing my evidence I considered ethos, logos, and pathos. My visual is very refined and I believe it clearly correlates with the perspective of my op-ed. I had to sort out several different ideas and concepts when planning my visual to maintain a clear message and have good rhetorical impact. I spent a lot of time refining my slogan (“Let’s Practice Peace to Stop Flashing These”) and I believe that without those words my perspective would be unclear. The category that my op-ed needs the most refinement in is organization because I believe with some time, I could arrange my paragraphs in a more logical and thought-provoking manner. Currently similar ideas are not grouped together. One positive change would be placing paragraphs that address evidence supporting the opposite viewpoint of my op-ed together.
If I had another week to refine my project, I would spend it editing my op-ed. Although I received two peer-critiques as well as feedback from Ashley, I believe there is room for further enhancement especially in the organizational aspect of it. My final draft is definitely much more thorough than previous drafts and I believe I could have enhanced it further if I had spent more time and possibly received an additional critique. If I were to do this project again, I would purchase a smaller poster board for my visual or find a better way to cut my current board because the space on it is utilized as much as it could be. My poster is refined and I am very proud of it, but I had originally planned on cutting it down but wasn’t able to find a method that looked professional and refined.
Artist Statement:My
political campaign poster represents my perspective on gun control, which is
that although gun violence is an issue in society, it will not cease until the
issue of violence within communities is addressed. I believe that guns are not
to blame for the violence within communities. The right to bear arms is
protected by the second amendment to the constitution and personal liberties
should not be violated. I chose to integrate a Thomas Jefferson quote: ““In
defense of our persons and properties under actual violation, we took up arms.
When that violence shall be removed, when hostilities shall cease on the part
of the aggressors, hostilities shall cease on our part also.” Because I felt it
clearly demonstrated my perspective and gives insight on how guns don’t kill
people, people kill people. This quote provides ethos to my visual because
Thomas Jefferson is a credible philosopher. My poster displays pathos rhetoric
by appealing to the emotions through gun violence. I choose to make my poster
all black and white to create the tone. I chose to arrange my poster the way I did to
move the onlookers view from the first image, to the guns and then to the
quote. In early idea drafts I had the images in a column but realized it would be
confusing for the audience. I am proud
of my poster because I believe it is refined and aesthetically pleasing. I
believe it has a clear message that corresponds with that of my op-ed. I choose
my slogan (“Let’s practice peace- to stop flashing these”) because it matches
with my visuals and helps convey the message.
Op-Ed:
Are Guns the Root of Violence Within Communities?
Currently in America, gun shots result in the deaths of about 80 people per day (Sherne). Clearly guns are deadly and may appear to have a negative impact on society and on those who possess them; however whether or not it is worth it to deprive people of their rights to bear arms to satisfy those who are pro-gun control is disputable. The right to bear arms is protected by the second amendment creating much controversy over the restriction and control of guns throughout the United States. Are guns the problem? Would further gun restriction help remove guns from the street and have a positive impact on society? Although increasing the difficulty for criminals to obtain weapons would provide a temporary solution to gun violence, it would not address the cause of it nor would it repair the root of the problem. If this violence continues to be tolerated, by society and our government, it will only increase.
Although the restriction of guns may reduce the amount of gun violence within communities, ultimately additional gun laws would not address the root of the problem. Until a long term solution is found, gun control alone will not cure the ailment of violence communities have become accustomed to because guns are not responsible for violence.
The underlying problem lies not with the guns, which violent crimes exploit, but with the issue of the brutality with which people have become familiar. Firearms are not acting violently; they are being misused at the hands of people. The way to deal with the misuse of guns is through direct action against violence within communities, not against the people who are using guns for their own security and personal protection. Impeding on the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is not justified by the inability of community member to handle a weapon. Gun control creates tension between the accommodation of personal security and liberty. From a Utilitarian perspective, one may argue that removing guns from the public would prevent them from being misused and ensure safety and security for the greater good. Though a cost-benefit analysis may conclude that removing liberty to ensure the safety of the greater good would be justified, depriving Americans of the right to bear arms and their personal security is not an option.
There is not a clear solution to balancing security and liberty regarding the regulation of weapons. Protecting the safety of people while ensuring their rights are not compromised would best be accomplished by the continuation of current gun control along with the acknowledgement of violence. A violent crime occurs every 26 seconds in the US (Murder). This statistic cannot be justified by a civilian’s right to bear arms.
More gun laws and restrictions would not have prevented horrific tragedies and mass murders that are a result of the exploitation of guns. Although recent tragedies such as the Sandy Hook and Aurora movie theatre shootings are shameful occurrences, all guns used by Adam Lanza and James Holmes were not illegally obtained. Out of the 143 weapons used in mass shootings in the US, over three quarters were obtained legally (Follman). Further restricting Americans from possessing the personal security guns provide and invading their liberty will not provide a solution. Attempt to prevent violent crime will ultimately reduce gun violence.
Although current gun control has a positive effect on society and is in its best interest, it does not have the power to prevent violent crime As a nation, we should attempt to lessen violence by addressing the issue and no longer allowing it to be tolerated. According the Federal Bureau of Investigation, about 1.4 million gang members are criminally active in the U.S. today. Each day people commit violent crime and face the repercussions, however there is little attempt by the government to prevent crime prior to it occurring. Why do we wait until crime occurs without ever attempting to prevent it?
Heightened gun restriction will not discourage nor deter those who are inclined to misuse guns and perform violent acts. The process of illegally obtaining weapons will not deter criminals from breaking laws and exploiting the right to possess guns. Jenny Darlow, a writer for The Seattle Times, stated: “Gun violence is not just a law-enforcement matter, it is also a public-health issue.” It is unfair to blame violence on guns. It is an excuse to avoid recognizing the real issue; brutality in society.
Although illegal weapons face much scrutiny and many claim they are responsible for violence, "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes" (Noyes). Most weapons obtained by criminals are obtained through “straw purchases", where someone asks a friend or family member to buy the weapon for them. Acknowledging illegal weapons and enforcing gun laws is a step toward reducing gun violence, however, it is unreasonable to assume that just because there are gun laws to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, that they will not be able to obtain guns through alternative means.
The misuse of arms should not result in the restriction of the legal gun possession of citizens who wish to bear arms for protection and personal security. Our government must take direct action in preventing violence rather than reaching for quick fix solutions that hurt innocent citizens more than they do criminals. With the guidance of the US constitution, we can determine that stripping citizens of their individual liberties is intolerable. Current action being taken by the government is not enough to reduce neither violent crime nor gun violence. When we come together as a nation and recognize this issue, will be when violence is reduced and all people are provided will an equal chance of safety and security.
Citations
Carbone, Nick. "Colorado Theater Shooter Carried 4 Guns, All Obtained Legally Read More: Http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/21/colorado-theater-shooter-carried-4-guns-all-obtained-legally/#ixzz2hC26lRSb." Time Newsfeed. N.p., 21 July 2012. Web. 08 Oct. 2013. <http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/21/colorado-theater-shooter-carried-4-guns-all-obtained-legally/>.
Darlow, Jenny. "Op-ed: Our Gun-control Laws Are Not Stopping Gun Violence." The Seattle Times. N.p., 2 Feb. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2013. <http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2020268452_jennydurkanopedxml.html>.
Follman, Mark, Deanna Pan, and Gavin Aronsen. "A Guide to Mass Shootings in America."Mother Jones. N.p., 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 09 Oct. 2013. <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map>.
"Gangs: They Poison Our Streets with Drugs, Violence, and All Manner of Crime." FBI. FBI, 19 Mar. 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2013. <http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/gangs>.
Kouri, Jim. "Op-Ed: Justice Dept. Study Shows 79% of Criminals Obtained Firearms Illegally." Ohioans for Concealed Carry, 01 Dec. 2004. Web. 08 Oct. 2013.
"Murder." FBI. FBI, 29 July 2013. Web. 21 Oct. 2013. <http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/murder>.
Noyes, Dan. "How Criminals Get Guns." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2013. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html>.
Sherne, Dana. "Adam Lanza Wouldn't Have Been Stopped by Stricter Gun Control Laws."PolicyMic. N.p., Jan. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2013. <http://www.policymic.com/articles/20861/adam-lanza-wouldn-t-have-been-stopped-by-stricter-gun-control-laws>.
Are Guns the Root of Violence Within Communities?
Currently in America, gun shots result in the deaths of about 80 people per day (Sherne). Clearly guns are deadly and may appear to have a negative impact on society and on those who possess them; however whether or not it is worth it to deprive people of their rights to bear arms to satisfy those who are pro-gun control is disputable. The right to bear arms is protected by the second amendment creating much controversy over the restriction and control of guns throughout the United States. Are guns the problem? Would further gun restriction help remove guns from the street and have a positive impact on society? Although increasing the difficulty for criminals to obtain weapons would provide a temporary solution to gun violence, it would not address the cause of it nor would it repair the root of the problem. If this violence continues to be tolerated, by society and our government, it will only increase.
Although the restriction of guns may reduce the amount of gun violence within communities, ultimately additional gun laws would not address the root of the problem. Until a long term solution is found, gun control alone will not cure the ailment of violence communities have become accustomed to because guns are not responsible for violence.
The underlying problem lies not with the guns, which violent crimes exploit, but with the issue of the brutality with which people have become familiar. Firearms are not acting violently; they are being misused at the hands of people. The way to deal with the misuse of guns is through direct action against violence within communities, not against the people who are using guns for their own security and personal protection. Impeding on the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is not justified by the inability of community member to handle a weapon. Gun control creates tension between the accommodation of personal security and liberty. From a Utilitarian perspective, one may argue that removing guns from the public would prevent them from being misused and ensure safety and security for the greater good. Though a cost-benefit analysis may conclude that removing liberty to ensure the safety of the greater good would be justified, depriving Americans of the right to bear arms and their personal security is not an option.
There is not a clear solution to balancing security and liberty regarding the regulation of weapons. Protecting the safety of people while ensuring their rights are not compromised would best be accomplished by the continuation of current gun control along with the acknowledgement of violence. A violent crime occurs every 26 seconds in the US (Murder). This statistic cannot be justified by a civilian’s right to bear arms.
More gun laws and restrictions would not have prevented horrific tragedies and mass murders that are a result of the exploitation of guns. Although recent tragedies such as the Sandy Hook and Aurora movie theatre shootings are shameful occurrences, all guns used by Adam Lanza and James Holmes were not illegally obtained. Out of the 143 weapons used in mass shootings in the US, over three quarters were obtained legally (Follman). Further restricting Americans from possessing the personal security guns provide and invading their liberty will not provide a solution. Attempt to prevent violent crime will ultimately reduce gun violence.
Although current gun control has a positive effect on society and is in its best interest, it does not have the power to prevent violent crime As a nation, we should attempt to lessen violence by addressing the issue and no longer allowing it to be tolerated. According the Federal Bureau of Investigation, about 1.4 million gang members are criminally active in the U.S. today. Each day people commit violent crime and face the repercussions, however there is little attempt by the government to prevent crime prior to it occurring. Why do we wait until crime occurs without ever attempting to prevent it?
Heightened gun restriction will not discourage nor deter those who are inclined to misuse guns and perform violent acts. The process of illegally obtaining weapons will not deter criminals from breaking laws and exploiting the right to possess guns. Jenny Darlow, a writer for The Seattle Times, stated: “Gun violence is not just a law-enforcement matter, it is also a public-health issue.” It is unfair to blame violence on guns. It is an excuse to avoid recognizing the real issue; brutality in society.
Although illegal weapons face much scrutiny and many claim they are responsible for violence, "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes" (Noyes). Most weapons obtained by criminals are obtained through “straw purchases", where someone asks a friend or family member to buy the weapon for them. Acknowledging illegal weapons and enforcing gun laws is a step toward reducing gun violence, however, it is unreasonable to assume that just because there are gun laws to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, that they will not be able to obtain guns through alternative means.
The misuse of arms should not result in the restriction of the legal gun possession of citizens who wish to bear arms for protection and personal security. Our government must take direct action in preventing violence rather than reaching for quick fix solutions that hurt innocent citizens more than they do criminals. With the guidance of the US constitution, we can determine that stripping citizens of their individual liberties is intolerable. Current action being taken by the government is not enough to reduce neither violent crime nor gun violence. When we come together as a nation and recognize this issue, will be when violence is reduced and all people are provided will an equal chance of safety and security.
Citations
Carbone, Nick. "Colorado Theater Shooter Carried 4 Guns, All Obtained Legally Read More: Http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/21/colorado-theater-shooter-carried-4-guns-all-obtained-legally/#ixzz2hC26lRSb." Time Newsfeed. N.p., 21 July 2012. Web. 08 Oct. 2013. <http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/21/colorado-theater-shooter-carried-4-guns-all-obtained-legally/>.
Darlow, Jenny. "Op-ed: Our Gun-control Laws Are Not Stopping Gun Violence." The Seattle Times. N.p., 2 Feb. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2013. <http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2020268452_jennydurkanopedxml.html>.
Follman, Mark, Deanna Pan, and Gavin Aronsen. "A Guide to Mass Shootings in America."Mother Jones. N.p., 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 09 Oct. 2013. <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map>.
"Gangs: They Poison Our Streets with Drugs, Violence, and All Manner of Crime." FBI. FBI, 19 Mar. 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2013. <http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/gangs>.
Kouri, Jim. "Op-Ed: Justice Dept. Study Shows 79% of Criminals Obtained Firearms Illegally." Ohioans for Concealed Carry, 01 Dec. 2004. Web. 08 Oct. 2013.
"Murder." FBI. FBI, 29 July 2013. Web. 21 Oct. 2013. <http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/murder>.
Noyes, Dan. "How Criminals Get Guns." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2013. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html>.
Sherne, Dana. "Adam Lanza Wouldn't Have Been Stopped by Stricter Gun Control Laws."PolicyMic. N.p., Jan. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2013. <http://www.policymic.com/articles/20861/adam-lanza-wouldn-t-have-been-stopped-by-stricter-gun-control-laws>.