As society continues to lead with individualism, we will continue to grow further away from a synergistic profile. Dwelling between these two concepts lies fuel in the form of quantitative rights. This fuel can either nurture a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals or strengthen the active role of government agencies. The purpose of the two essays surrounds open-carry policies. I’ve selected two articles that I have found to be the most persuasive. During my reading, I’ve discovered that they indirectly complement each other; a parallel is seen in antiphonal composition through call and response. Each of the papers have surpassed their colleagues by providing substantial appeals to emotion and reason while each having a different
…show more content…
Capps employs an emotional approach using the Dallas incident to drive home his purpose. The author attempts to reason with those in favor of open-carry; he does this by establishing some common ground. The mutual perception being manufactured by Capps is based on his ability to recognize that individuals have the right to carry firearms, but in certain circumstances it can impede justice. By doing this, he changes the focal point of the argument against open-carry to the safety of the police officers trying to find the shooter, help the victims, and protect the public. One of his many appeals to logic is seen with his implementation of Mark Hughes’s experience. He relays how, by exercising his right to carry a gun, he is a potential threat in dangerous circumstances. The author appeals to emotion by including the tragic loss of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. This furthers his purpose by addressing the source of the anger. This was one of many reasons why Hughes was a part of the protest and why he chose to march with a rifle on his shoulder. This summarizes the first attempt to understand both arguments. Amidst the chaos, the Dallas Police Department wrongfully labeled Hughes as the …show more content…
According to Townhall.com, Matt Vespa is an associate editor and recipient of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation Award and the Andrew Breibart Award for Excellence in Online Activism and Investigative Reporting (Townhall.com). In the article “Before we RIP Open-Carry Laws”, the author’s purpose is to testify on the behalf of open-carry policies that the Dallas incident wasn’t the result of expanding gun rights. Crime rates in Texas haven’t been lower. Matt Vespa urges the public that this was nothing more than a freak accident and that society shouldn’t use this as a Segway to bash gun rights. The author is sarcastic in his testimony to the public. This may serve as a disadvantage toward the people he is attempting to educate. No one can deny that the idea and vision of gun rights exists in two sectors: people who favor increased gun rights and people who are against it. Vespa doesn’t take too much time to express his position on the issue. He writes this article to defend the side he agrees with while also trying to educate the public on the matter. He attempts to suture the fresh wound received by the Dallas community so that an opposing infection isn’t developed. In his opening remarks, Vespa provides the interview of Charles Blow and civil rights lawyer Areva Martin to present the opposing argument. During the discussion, both interviewees agreed that possessing a firearm in a hostile
Capps employs an emotional approach using the Dallas incident to drive home his purpose. The author attempts to reason with those in favor of open-carry; he does this by establishing some common ground. The mutual perception being manufactured by Capps is based on his ability to recognize that individuals have the right to carry firearms, but in certain circumstances it can impede justice. By doing this, he changes the focal point of the argument against open-carry to the safety of the police officers trying to find the shooter, help the victims, and protect the public. One of his many appeals to logic is seen with his implementation of Mark Hughes’s experience. He relays how, by exercising his right to carry a gun, he is a potential threat in dangerous circumstances. The author appeals to emotion by including the tragic loss of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. This furthers his purpose by addressing the source of the anger. This was one of many reasons why Hughes was a part of the protest and why he chose to march with a rifle on his shoulder. This summarizes the first attempt to understand both arguments. Amidst the chaos, the Dallas Police Department wrongfully labeled Hughes as the …show more content…
According to Townhall.com, Matt Vespa is an associate editor and recipient of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation Award and the Andrew Breibart Award for Excellence in Online Activism and Investigative Reporting (Townhall.com). In the article “Before we RIP Open-Carry Laws”, the author’s purpose is to testify on the behalf of open-carry policies that the Dallas incident wasn’t the result of expanding gun rights. Crime rates in Texas haven’t been lower. Matt Vespa urges the public that this was nothing more than a freak accident and that society shouldn’t use this as a Segway to bash gun rights. The author is sarcastic in his testimony to the public. This may serve as a disadvantage toward the people he is attempting to educate. No one can deny that the idea and vision of gun rights exists in two sectors: people who favor increased gun rights and people who are against it. Vespa doesn’t take too much time to express his position on the issue. He writes this article to defend the side he agrees with while also trying to educate the public on the matter. He attempts to suture the fresh wound received by the Dallas community so that an opposing infection isn’t developed. In his opening remarks, Vespa provides the interview of Charles Blow and civil rights lawyer Areva Martin to present the opposing argument. During the discussion, both interviewees agreed that possessing a firearm in a hostile