How to respond the Classmates
Your discussion question responses to other students must be substantive (i.e., they must make a contribution to the discussion, rather than simply expressing your approval of their post). Here are some of the types of responses that are appropriate and will earn you fill credit: (p, q, & r are variables of statements)
You can post several types of replies to your classmates:
1) Clarification Request: You claim p, but I don’t know what you mean by saying p. Please clarify. Do you mean by this q or r?
2) Argument Request: You claim p. I know what you mean by p. But why do you claim p? I don’t see any argument for p, and I think you need to give an argument for it.
3) Objection: You claim p (and maybe you argue for it). However, I think that p, (or your argument for p), is problematic. Here’s my objection to p (or to your argument for p): q. What do you say in response to q?
4) Assistance. You claim p. I agree with you that p, but i think the following additional reason (which you do not mention) can be given in support of p: q.
5) Competing Interpretation: You say that the reading claims that p. However, I don’t think that this is exactly what it says. Instead, I think it says q (and here’s why I think this).
6) Suggestion of Parallels: You claim p. P reminds me of so-and-so’s claim that q. (But keep in mind: Are the two really similar? Does comparing p to q help illuminate p, or is it just misleading?)
Here are two comments from my classmates, which need to response following the ways above.
1. In Chapter 5, Hunt analyzes means rights and options rights. Essentially, it would be wrong to allow someone the option right of self defense without the means rights to exercise it. This is where the Principle of Best Means comes from: enabling the best available means to exercise an option right. Since disallowing the right to own a gun would negatively impact self defense, gun rights are necessary if self defense is a right. This argument does make sense in its scope, but it is rather narrow as a defendant’s right to own a gun also means an attacker has the right to own a gun. If everyone has the right to own lethal weapons, wouldn’t this result in an increase of situations where self defense and gun rights are necessary? The solution to the problem perpetuates the problem.
The 6th chapter explores type and token risks. Type risks are risks posed by a group of people and token risks are related to select individuals. Hunt argues that rational people are unlikely to use a firearm to cause harm to innocent people. Since gun control is enforced due to a few people’s actions rather than the majority, the negative impact to innocent gun owners is too great. I would have liked to see some supporting evidence that guns are useful in self defense, useful enough to warrant allowing the chance of gun violence.
In the 7th chapter, Hunt criticizes the medical community and others for viewing guns as the violent outcome rather than what they are on their own. Hunt argues that these communities are focused more on the result, and that guns cannot be blamed for what people choose to do with them. While I agree with this, a gun offers an easy, clean, detached way of killing someone. Does the easy accessibility to the ability to kill influence one’s decision to kill?
Finally, Hunt concludes by arguing that while background checks are necessary before allowing weapon purchases, restricting access to guns is against the law and morally wrong. My closing thoughts on this are that background checks may not be performed properly, and it is difficult to decide one’s future from a topical, incomplete analysis of one’s past.
2. Chapter 9) The chapter begins with mentioning two men who killed many people with guns. The first boy shot people in a theater. The second boy killed his mother and many children. These stories lead to the author bringing up gun control because after tragedies such as these, people often look to political leaders to make a change. Often times, political leaders make no changes regarding gun control. Once people looked to politicians for help after the Newton tragedy (the boy who kill his mother, 4 adults, many children, and himself) the NRA spoke out and said “the only thing that stops a bad buy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. These are not the only mass shooting that have happened in the U.S. Over 30,000 have died by gun deaths in a year. The author believes when people can easily attain guns, there is more risk of gn deaths.
Chapter 10) This chapter starts out with the second amendment. This then leads to the description of why the second amendment mentions militia. The reading mentions how in the past supreme court justices have mentioned that for a long time the second amendment was viewed as only applying to bearing arms for military purposes. There is an argument that the second amendment should not be unlimited. There should be limits to being able to have guns. There shouldn’t be endless possibilities to owning tons of guns, endless types of guns, where the guns are, etc.
Chapter 11) This chapter begins with talking about how we view the ideas of self defense and physical security in an ethical way and not in a law focused way. Gun advocates often view owning a gun as a moral right. What are the strongest arguments for the moral reasons to owning a gun? Firstly, wanting to own guns for self defense and wanting to protect one’s self and their family can viewed as a morally positive thing. The basic moral rights of self defense are physical security, take necessary measures to to prevent basic rights from being violated, freedom to do whatever it takes to defend one’s self, etc.
The chapter 12 is all about appeals. It mentions 3 appeals to liberty rights which is the assertion to basic rights to own guns, appeal to freedom to pursue one’s own conceptions of the good life, and the appeal to freedom from a tyrannical government. The author believes that people throw around words like “right” “Liberty” “right to freedom” and “its a free country”. However, no place is fully “free”. The author believes that viewing issues as “rights” or “freedoms” is difficult because anytime that right is curtailed, then the right has been totally violated.
0 comments