On May 8th, 2019 Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a law that arms teachers in the state who undergo the necessary training. The policy allows districts who approve of allowing teachers who undergo training at the sheriff’s office to be able to bring guns to school (Metler). The vote in Florida was largely passed along party lines in both Florida state legislatures, with a majority Republicans supporting the bill to arm teachers and all Democrats opposed. This shows a strong partisan divide on the issue and the proposal. This was also consistent with the results of my survey, which found that support for arming teachers was 75 percent amongst self described Conservatives as opposed to a 28 percent rate of support amongst overall poll takers. With this law signed, Florida becomes the ninth state in America to allow school staff members to openly carry guns, joining Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, Wyoming, Missouri, Idaho, South Dakota, and Tennessee (Dwyer). Every state who has passed laws arming teachers have had conservative majorities in the state legislature.

This policy has been largely endorsed by Conservative lawmakers and voters. President Donald Trump has endorsed the idea, saying in a tweet “Armed Educators (and trusted people who work within a school) love our students and will protect them” (Landers). Trump is essentially saying that arming teachers will be able to stop school shooters if they have guns because they will be armed. The NRA supports the policy as well, with the NRA president in 2012 saying the now infamous quote “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. Public opinion is strongly against arming teachers, with a survey of 1,000 public educators in 2018 finding that 74% of educators opposed arming teachers (Walker). Education advocacy organizations are strongly opposed to the idea of arming teachers, with the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, and the National Association of School Resource Officers all coming out opposed to the policy of arming teachers, saying the focus should be on school safety measures and that increasing the number of guns on school campuses will make schools less safe (Spencer). This shows a massive disparity in who supports the policy, with conservative lawmakers and pro second amendment organizations supporting the policy while liberal lawmakers and education organizations opposed. Ultimately after researching the policy of arming teachers I believe that arming teachers is a bad idea because of the increased rate of gun-related crimes following reduced gun laws, the bad precedent this policy sets, and the fact that arming teachers diverts money away from other school policy.

The first argument against arming teachers is that statistics show an increased rate of crime after the passing of concealed carry laws. Arming teachers is essentially concealed carry for teachers. Stanford Professor Jonathan Donahue conducted research looking at crime rates before and after concealed carry laws were loosened; what the data showed was that crime rates increased after concealed carry laws were loosened, with some instances the rate increasing as high as 15 percent (Donahue). Donahue also questions if the policy would be effective, citing how in Columbine twelve officers fired 141 gunshots at the shooters and missed every single shot (Donahue). If trained law enforcement officers who had years of experience were unable to hit a shooter why should anyone expect that a teacher with less experience and only basic training be able to kill the gunman? Plus a study published in Scientific Journal in 2017 showed that people who carry their guns outside of their homes are three times more likely to have that gun stolen, with those who improperly store their firearms being most susceptible to gun theft. To properly store a gun can cost up to $150, which for a teacher is a lot of money, which means that there probably will be cases of teachers improperly storing their guns, leading to their gun being stolen. When that happens the school likely goes into lockdown, which disrupts the learning environment that school is supposed to provide to the kids attending and puts all of the school’s students and faculty in danger, all of which could have been avoided if there were not guns on campus. Also armed police officers rarely are able to hit their target in an active shooter situation. According to the Violence Policy Center, “Trained law enforcement officials have only an average 20 percent hit ratio in armed confrontations meaning that only 20 percent of shots fired hit the intended target” (“Arm teachers? The Facts are Against It”). These statistics are in the case of police officers with years of training to deal with these situations. The teachers who will be armed will have only basic training and would have never had experiences of dealing with high stress active shooter situations.

Another great example of the dangers of arming teachers are the statistics about guns that went missing. According to the Violence Policy Center “300 guns used in the federally administered program to arm commercial airline pilots were lost in one 60-day period in 2004 according to pilot organizations” (“Arm Teachers? The Facts are Against It?”). These stats show the failure of instituting a policy that increases the number of armed civilians who do not properly store the guns. Statistics from the United States Department of Homeland Security also found that in a two year period of 2006 to 2008 there were 289 guns either lost or stolen from law enforcement agencies due to improper firearm storage (“Arm Teachers? The Facts are Against It?”). This shows that even properly funded law enforcement agencies have instances of guns being improperly stored and as a result stolen. If law enforcement agencies that are better funded than public schools have instances of guns being stolen because of improper storage then there will be cases of guns being stolen from schools where guns are not being stored properly, compromising the safety of the school and the thousands of students and faculty who are at the school.

Those who are in favor of arming teachers claim that having armed teachers will reduce the amount of deaths in mass shootings because teachers will be able to shoot the shooter dead. This is what Florida Republican state senator Dennis Baxley argued when voting in favor of passing the law arming teachers, saying ““Who is first during that first three minutes is key — somebody who could respond” (Mazzei). The reality could not be further from the truth. A trained police officer will only hit their intended target in confrontations with someone who is armed and dangerous only 20 percent of the time (“Arm Teachers?. The Facts are Against It”). That means that 80 percent said of the shots fired in an armed conflict will not hit their intended target. There is no reason to expect that 20 percent rate of accuracy to increase with teachers firing the gun instead of police officers and that 80 percent inaccuracy rate is dangerous when considering that the classroom will be full of children who could easily get caught in the crossfire. Arming teachers will also put teachers at an increased risk of being shot. According to FBI statistics, 47 percent of the time when police officers fired on school shooters, they ended being shot (FBI). If we replace police officers in this scenario with armed teachers, a teacher who decides to attempt to shoot the gunman will almost half of the time, and unlike cops these teachers will be wearing no protective gear that can possibly shield the bullet. Plus that/s assuming that the rate will stay the same and not increase. Arming teachers puts the lives of those teachers in danger.

Finally I want to show that arming teachers is a bad idea by presenting the precedent that such a policy sets. The passing of the law arming teachers sets a precedent that increasing guns is a solution to gun violence when the statistics i have presented overwhelmingly show otherwise. Plus the passing of this law could make states less likely to pass gun reform that has been proven to reduce mass shootings and instead choose to arm teachers which has no direct scientific evidence saying that it reduces casualties in mass shootings but with scientific evidence that suggests that such a policy will only put the lives of teachers and students more at risk of gun violence. Then there’s the fact that instituting a policy of arming teachers will cost school districts that choose to do so money. Florida has the lowest per student funding of all fifty states (Solocheck) and this policy will only divert money that could be used to help better fund school programs. The primary debate surrounding schools should be the education of students, not whether or not teachers should be armed with guns.

Overall my research leads me to believe that arming teachers is a bad idea that should not be implemented. I think that Florida’s decision to arm teachers sets a dangerous precedent that more guns is the solution when research shows that the opposite is true. I also worry that this shifts the discussion away from common sense gun reform that has been shown to lower the number of mass shootings. The only way we the people can block these policies from going into effect is to write to our local politicians telling them that we are against the policy of arming teachers, that schools should not be politicized, and that voting in support of arming teachers will be political suicide.

Works Cited:

“Arm Teachers? The Facts are Against It”. Violence Policy Center. http://www.ncdsv.org/images/VPC_Arm-teachers-the-facts-argue-against-it.pdf

Mettler, Kate. “It’s the law now: In Florida, teachers can carry guns at school”. The Washington Post. 9 May 2019. https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/05/09/its-law-now-florida-teachers-can-carry-guns-school/%3foutputType=amp

Dwyer, Kate. “Guns in School? Here’s a List of States that allow armed teachers”. The Morning Call. 14 February 2019. https://www.mcall.com/news/education/mc-nws-guns-in-schools-list-20181108-story.html?outputType=amp

Donahue, Johnathan. “Does Increased Gun Ownership Help Decrease Crime?” Stanford University. 7 November 2017. https://law.stanford.edu/press/increased-gun-ownership-help-decrease-crime/

Landers, Elizabeth. “Trump tweets support for arming teachers, says ‘up to states’”. CNN. 24 February 2018. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/24/politics/trump-tweet-arming-teachers/index.html

Spencer, Terry. “Education Unions Oppose Calls to Arm Teachers”. APNews.

11 February 2019. https://www.apnews.com/a6239079b84a459291b69d3c17c0e455

Solochek, Jeffrey. “Florida rates poorly in per-student funding, in new Education Week report”. Tampa Bay Times. 6 June 2018. https://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/2018/06/06/florida-rates-poorly-in-per-student-funding-in-new-education-week-report/

Mazzei, Peter. “Florida Moves Toward Arming Teachers, Despite Opposition From Parkland Students”. New York Times. 23 April 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/us/florida-teacher-armed.html

“FBI Releases Study on Active Shooter Incidents”. FBI. 24 September 2014. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents

The Right of Teachers to Bear Arms and Consequences of Bad Gun Policy was originally published in The Wilson Times on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

For my call to action I wrote to my local U.S. congressman asking him to support a bill that would federally block the newly signed law in Florida that armed teachers from taking effect. I chose to write to my congressman because I went to his town hall on gun violence and he told us an extremely personal story about how his father died from gun violence when he was a kid, plus he presented research showing that gun control is effective. This combined with his record in congress makes me believe that he would support the measure that would block arming teachers from taking effect. I also thought about writing to Florida’s governor, but since I don’t live in Florida I thought he wouldn’t take me seriously while my local congressman would. This is what the letter I wrote read.

Dear Congressman DeSaulnier,

I am writing to you as a concerned constituent asking you to support federal legislation that would block Senate Bill 7030 in Florida that would arm teachers from taking effect. I understand why you might be hesitant to support legislation that would have the federal government block a state law from taking effect but law is a public safety risk that puts the lives of Florida students at risk.

Studies have overwhelmingly shown the dangers that come with increasing the presence of guns in school. A study conducted in 2017 that was published in Inquiry Epidemiology’s journal found that people were three times more likely to have their gun stolen if it was carried outside of the owner’s home. Because of the high cost to properly store these guns, these weapons are more likely to be improperly stored which increases the rate of potential gun theft even more and makes these teachers more susceptible to gun theft. Putting guns in school will lead to instances of improper storage, which then will lead to an increased likelihood of a gun being stolen, which if happened on a school campus will disrupt the academic learning environment of students, increase school lockdowns, and lead to the safety of everyone on the campus becoming compromised.

Not only does arming teachers put the students of the school at risk, it also puts the teachers at risk. FBI statistics has found that in cases where an armed officer opened fire on a school shooter, 62% of the time the officer was shot. These officers are required to go through intense police training, and while these teachers are required to undergo police training as well, the training is nowhere near as long or as intense as that of a police officer who likely has had experience on the force dealing with similar situations. Arming teachers essentially replaces an experienced police officer who has years of experience with teacher who only has basic gun training. Plus there’s the possibility that the teacher isn’t a good shot and an innocent student will get shot in the crossfire.

To arm teachers is to put the lives of everyone at the school at risk because of the increased likelihood of the gun being stolen, the increased likelihood of armed teachers who would be caught in the crossfire being shot, and the fact that even with training teachers aren’t as prepared to deal with these situations as a police officer. I encourage you to please propose legislation that federally blocks this legislation from going into law. The safety of American students and teachers are at risk as long as these teachers are armed.

Sincerely,

Will Wilson

Me mailing the letter:

My Call to Action was originally published in The Wilson Times on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

(https://mobile.surveymonkey.com/web/surveys/173762485/analyze?from=summary)

When I conducted the survey, I asked 10 questions related to personal experiences with guns and corresponding views. These questions included “Do you know someone who has been a victim of gun violence”, “Have you or someone you lived with ever owned a gun” to gauge their personal experiences with guns and then “Which of these policies do you support” to see how their views change (survey). The policies I asked about included centrist options like Universal Background Checks and more extreme options like a constitutional amendment banning guns and arming teachers. 40 people responded and what I found was that there was little to no difference in people’s support of the centrist solution of universal background checks (~71% among people who knew someone who was a victim of gun violence versus ~71% of people overall) (Survey). What I did find was that people who knew people who were victims of gun violence tended to double-down on political affiliation amongst people who self-identified as liberal or conservative. 67% of people who self identified as liberal who knew someone who was a victim of gun violence supported an assault weapons ban, as opposed to 45% overall support (survey). The same could be said about self described conservatives who knew someone who was a victim of gun violence, 60% of whom supported arming teachers compared to a 27.5% rate of support overall (Survey). This really stood out to me because it showed that instead of changing people’s views, knowing someone who was a victim of gun violence doubled down in their current beliefs about guns and the beliefs that corresponded to their political affiliation. I was fascinated by this until I talked to someone who knew the impact of gun violence, where the interview gave me insight into why people doubled down on their views on guns.

Wanting a better understanding on a personal level, I interviewed a fellow San Francisco State student whose school was locked down because of an active shooter on her brother’s campus. When I asked her about her initial reaction, she said “that was before I knew about Columbine, before I had any knowledge about school shooters so I initially wasn’t worried, but when I found out that it was on my brother’s campus I was more worried for him. But then I remember like a day later we went back to school and they had us do a mass assembly and that’s when they showed us a bunch of documentaries on Columbine and that was kinda scarring, that was kind of like ‘woah’…everyone was crying because we didn’t know it could get to that point.” She then told me a really personal story about how her friend committed suicide using a gun “[I remember] he was super charismatic, really outgoing, really friendly. I remember it was the last day of winter break, I brought everyone cookies and he wasn’t at school so I was like ‘damn I can’t give him his cookies’ and a week later I was going out on a scavenger hunt with my friends and then I got a text from my friend and he was like ‘go check Facebook, it’s really bad’ and someone posted like ‘rest in peace’ and I was like ‘woah, there’s no way’. Then they did a news story and that’s how I found out that he was in a bathroom by himself and he used a gun…I was in a car waiting for my friends and I just started bawling my eyes out.” Understandably, I noticed that she began to get more emotional telling this story, showing me that it really affected her. This gave me insight into her personal experiences with guns and when I asked about how this impacted her views, she said that the assembly and the lockdown made her more aware but that after her friend shot himself “it reinforced my views that guns are bad. (Gun control is) not even a debate to me anymore. It’s like global warming, if you don’t believe in it, one you’re wrong it’s not an opinion, two you’re only gonna side more with your side. You’re never gonna look on the other side and think ‘that makes sense’, you’re only gonna focus on your defense.” This quote not only explains perfectly the phenomenon I saw in my survey about people who knew the impacts of gun violence only becoming more likely to double down in their current beliefs, but also gives a face and a story to those people and their experiences. And while everyone who has been a victim or knows a victim’s story is different, the reinforcement of current beliefs on the issue of guns remains consistent.

As to why this is, I think that people’s life experiences shape them and when something traumatic happens people think of ‘what ifs’. If they are liberal, they’ll think “what if he didn’t have a gun” whereas if they are conservative they think “what if I had been able to stop them”. So instead of trying to understand the opposing view, people will just think “I’ve lived it, so my opinion is more valid than the opposition”.

Overall the survey showed me that people tended to stick to their own political views when it came to gun control, and the interview explained why people were that way.

Works Cited:

https://mobile.surveymonkey.com/web/surveys/173762485/analyze?from=summary (Pictures of the results will be posted on my Blog post).

Does One’s personal Experiences with Guns Impact Their Views on Gun Control? was originally published in The Wilson Times on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

(https://dailyfamily.ng/6-signs-of-a-depressed-person-2/)

Before I begin this post I want anyone who is reading this who is suicidal to call this number:

1–800–273–8255

I may not know you personally, but I know that you are worth so much more than you think and that there are more people in this world who care about you than you think.

When talking about the issue of gun violence, the conversation is usually centered around mass shootings and gang violence (which are important topics that need to continue to be talked about). But another topic that is equally as important tends to be ignored: suicides. In my first post I mentioned a New York Times Op-Ed titled “I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise”, author Leah Libresco cites research her and her colleagues collected on gun violence and found that “Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides” (Liberesco). She then goes on to explain in the article how her research showed that gun control did not lead to reduced crime rates overall and that there wasn’t enough evidence to conclude that gun control was effective. That being said the part about suicide accounting for two thirds of all gun deaths really stuck out to me because of how suicide was largely ignored in the gun debate. Suicide is a major issue that needs to be talked about. Why are so many people committing suicides with guns and is there anything we can do to stop it?

Before reading this op-ed, I never considered the suicide prevention aspect of the gun violence and gun control discussion, but after reading that Op-Ed and fact checking it I realize that the issue of suicide cannot be ignored in either discussion anymore.

Because suicide is such a complex topic I wanted to look further outside the New York Times Op-Ed to get a better understanding of the suicide epidemic. According to everytownresearch.org, a website that encourages gun safety, an average of nearly 22,000 Americans commit suicide every year and 59 Americans commit suicide each day (everytownresearch.org). The website goes on to repeat the stat Libresco listed in the Op-Ed https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Everytown_final_logo.pngthat suicides make up two thirds of gun deaths, but goes on to say that half of those suicide victims use a gun as their method of death (everytownresearch.org). This despite research conducted by the Giffords Center that they are used in only five percent of suicide attempts (Giffords). These statistics show just how deadly guns are when in the wrong hands. The fact that guns are only used in five percent of attempts yet make up over half the total suicide deaths illustrate the difference between the gun suicide attempts and other suicide attempts. I want to make it very clear that you should NEVER try to commit suicide and that there are ways to get the help you need. But those who attempt suicide with guns are far less likely to survive compared to those who use other methods.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Everytown_final_logo.png)

Libresco in the Op-Ed says cites how suicides make up two-thirds of gun deaths. But one thing her article doesn’t touch on is how big the disparity is between suicide attempts with and without guns are. The idea that someone who is suicidal will just use other methods to attempt suicide may be true, but those other methods prove to be less deadly than guns. According to Giffords.org, “Most people who attempt suicide without a gun survive in both the short and long term — 90% of survivors do not die by suicide” (Giffords). This compared with a 50% rate of suicide by gun despite being used in only 5% of attempts (Giffords).

(https://www.caringcrowd.org/sites/default/files/styles/organization_logo/public/logo-giffords-law-center-to-prevent-gun-violence.png?itok=wqfK7PGp)

These statistics prove that suicides are preventable if a gun is not involved, which is why it is so important to include suicide victims in the gun reform debate. When it comes to policies preventing gun suicides, these will also help reduce overall suicides and giving more people a second chance. When talking about policies that can help prevent gun deaths, we cannot ignore those who make up the highest amount of those killed by guns which are suicide victims. I’m really glad I read the New York Times Op-Ed by Leah Libresco, because not only did it expand my understanding of the gun violence epidemic, but it opened my eyes to an entire group of people who have been wrongfully ignored in the gun violence and gun control conversation. And when two Parkland Survivors took their lives one year after surviving the deadliest school shooting in American history, the lives of tens of thousands of people depend on being included in the conversation.

Again, if you are reading this and suicidal please don’t try to take your own life in any manner, with a gun or without a gun, and please get the help you need. Call the number above or contact any of these services that specialize in suicide prevention and helping people rid themselves of depression.

National Suicide Prevention Hotline

Yellow Ribbon Suicide Prevention Program

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention

Hope For Depression

JED

Works Cited:

Libresco, Leah. “I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise”. The New York Times. Published 3 October 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.31f991c3ffef

“Firearm Suicide in the United States”. Everytown. Published 18 August 2018. https://everytownresearch.org/firearm-suicide/

“Guns and Suicide”. Giffords. https://giffords.org/issue/guns-and-suicide/

Why is Suicide Ignored in the Gun Violence Debate was originally published in The Wilson Times on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Gun control has been a hot topic ever since Columbine in 1998 and has only increased ever since the 2018 Parkland shooting. This is why it’s important to really analyze your sources when it comes to the gun control debate and make sure that you aren’t reading “fake news”. A perfect example of the importance of analyzing your sources is gunfacts.info. They say on their website that they are “neither pro-gun nor anti-gun. They are pro-facts and anti-bs” and want to “debunk gun control as misinformation” (Gunfacts). They also say on their mission statement that they want to “return honesty to the gun control debate” and that their research comes from “peer reviewed studies and government databases” (Gunfacts). The website also shows graphs about gun control statistics.

The Gun Facts logo:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_banners/2861396988/1414014696/1500x500)

Upon first look it could actually appear to have some credible information, albeit presented in a very eccentric format. The image above is what a reader sees when they first click onto the website, followed by tabs that direct them to each webpage and section of the site. About the publisher, infographics, blog posts, books, Alerts and Volunteers, and Donate are all the tabs at the top of the screen.

But upon further examination it becomes clear that the website is not credible. The website has biased statements throughout, articles lack specific authors, and information presented from sources that have been described by fact checking websites as biased. For legal purposes I want to make it clear that this is just my opinion about the website and I encourage everyone to make their own conclusions should they decide to visit it.

The first reason I found Gunfacts.info to not be credible was the biased statements that frame the information to back an agenda. The website’s main focus is to “debunk common myths about gun control” (Gunfacts). This statement suggests bias within the cite, as they are trying to prove a specific argument by attacking the opposing argument credibility, as is the case anytime a website or article’s main focus is to debunk or disprove a side instead of presenting the evidence in a fair, unbiased manner.

The website includes other statements throughout that also show a clear anti-gun control bias. These statements include “…when a neighbor, pundit or politician repeats some sound bite about gun control policy, you can quickly find that myth then rebuke with accurate information”, “Are red flag laws effective, or should politicians be flagged for being offsides” , and “…a headline from a propaganda organization within the gun control movement” (Gunfacts). These statements all show that the website is clearly focused more on pushing a specific agenda and not on presenting the information for the user to make their own conclusions about. The quotes frame all the information in an anti-gun control image as that is the position the website hopes readers will form after reading.

Editor of Gunfacts

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/GSmith073.jpg/1200px-GSmith073.jpg)

The second reason I found Gunfacts.info to not be credible to is the articles in the blog lack specific authors. When I went to the blog section of the website, all of their articles were published by “admin”. They didn’t list specific people who you could fact check the credibility of. The website lists Guy Smith as the website’s editor and describes him as “a writer, songwriter, and political provocateur” (Gunfacts.info). The phrase “political provocateur” stands out to me because provocateurs tend to only present one side of the argument and make outlandish statements to incite a reaction from the opposition. Perhaps this was just a misuse of words, but the fact that the website’s editor uses that particular word to describe him has to be taken into consideration when evaluating a website’s credibility. While it does say that Smith is “not a member of any political organization” it doesn’t say the same about all members who work at Gunfacts.info, specifically members of “admin” who write all of the posts in the website’s blog section.

(http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Mass-Public-Shottings-by-the-numbers-1.jpg)

Finally, the third reason I found the website not to be credible is the information doesn’t have a clear source for the information presented on some of their charts. While some charts, like the chart of “Interstate Sources of Crime Guns” (Gunfacts.info) have a citation of sources that check out as credible, other charts have citations from organizations whose credibility has come into question. For example Gunfacts’ “Mass Public Shooting by the numbers” chart is cited as being from the Crime Prevention Research Center, which has been described by mediabiasfactcheck.com as having a “Right Bias” whose founder John Lott “has been called a junk scientist and been accused of accepting funding from the NRA” (Media Bias Fact Check). The fact that gubfacts.info uses this center that is labeled as biased suggests that it is likely that the website harbors the same biases.

(https://i2.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/right03.png?ssl=1)

Overall I want to stress the importance of fact-checking any information that you find online, especially when it comes to the gun control debate where emotions tend to run high on both sides. When I found Gunfacts.info I approached it with an open mind an a hope to learn new information. But the more I looked into it, the less credible I found it. Statements of bias, lack of authors on blog posts, and the willingness to use information from biased sources. Once again I want to remind readers that this is just my analysis of the website and I encourage anyone who is interested to go to the website and form your own conclusions.

Works Cited:

https://www.gunfacts.info/infographics/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/crime-prevention-research-center/

Is the Website Credible? was originally published in The Wilson Times on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180227080425-brian-mast-super-tease.jpg)

On February 23rd, 2018, Republican Congressman from Florida’s 18th congressional district Brian Mast explains his position on the issue of gun control through a New York Times Opinion Editorial titled “I’m a Republican. I Appreciate Assault Weapons. And I support a Ban”. Mast begins his article by citing his military experience with these weapons, the AR-15 in particular, as why he believes that these weapons are dangerous (Mast). Mast then mentions how gun violence has impacted the community he represents and how the AR-15 has made the community less safe (Mast). Finally, Mast closes the article out by listing numerous gun control measures that he supports (Mast). Mast’s main points of the article are his personal experience, his knowledge of the AR-15, and how he has seen the use of the AR-15 negatively impact his community through gun violence.

Mast uses the rhetorical appeals ethos, pathos, and logos to advocate for an assault weapons ban being implemented at the federal level. Overall, I believe that the congressman did an excellent job using ethos, pathos, and logos to present his argument in favor of the ban. His message also resonated with voters, as he won his reelection in 2018 despite his party losing 41 seats in the United States House of Representatives. The one criticism I have for Congressman Mast’s article was the lack of concrete statistics that cite how an assault weapons ban would decrease gun violence, nevertheless I personally found the uses of ethos, pathos, and logos to make his point very convincing.

First Mast uses Ethos to establish his credibility on the issue of guns. He begins the article by saying:

“The most important and unregrettable time of my life was the 12 years I spent in the Army. I became a bomb technician because I wanted to save lives. I nearly gave my own life for that — I lost both my legs and a finger when a roadside bomb detonated beneath me — and have known more heroes than I can count who died defending others” (Mast). By beginning his Op-Ed this way, Congressman Mast tells the reader about his experience with weapons as a member of the Army for 12 years, Mast makes the reader trust what he has to say. The reader knows that because Mast sacrificed his legs and a finger serving his country, that he personally knows how dangerous military-style weapons are, therefore his stance on an Assault Weapons ban has validity before he even makes his case. Mast then explains his experience using assault rifles and how it has shaped his stance on an assault weapons ban.

“I have fired tens of thousands of rounds through that rifle, many in combat. We used it because it was the most lethal — the best for killing our enemies. And I know that my community, our schools and public gathering places are not made safer by any person having access to the best killing tool the Army could put in my hands.” (Mast). This quote helps establish congressman Mast’s credibility because he has actually used the weapons that are debating being banned. He comes from the point of view as someone who has seen the destruction that these weapons caused in the military, and the destruction that they are doing to the communities he is representing. Because he actually has seen the effect these weapons had in both instances, he becomes a more credible casemaker for t the new proposed legislation.

Brian Mast then continued to use ethos to make his argument, this time in an attempt to convince those who disagree with his stance. “No firearm is evil. Guns are tools that fulfill the intent of their users, good or bad. But we’ve seen that the rifle of choice for many mass shooters is the AR-15” (Mast). The opening sentence explaining that the gun itself isn’t evil echoes the common pathos-based sentiment of those who oppose gun control. By echoing these sentiments before transitioning to a logos-based argument, Mast makes his case seem stronger to those on both sides of the gun control debate.

The next rhetorical tactic that Brian Mast uses in his Op-Ed is Pathos, or emotional appeal. “I cannot support the primary weapon I used to defend our people being used to kill children I swore to defend” (Mast). This directly appeals to the reader’s empathy by portraying Mast as a hero for defending the people while making sure that they are safe by being against the AR-15 when it kills citizens.

The Congressman portrays this as a safety issue where people’s lives are at risk without change. This actually is a common tactic used by people who support gun control, however those people tend to be more liberal. This makes the fact that a Republican war veteran is making a passionate, pathos-centered argument is a massive political statement and gives a new wave of hope for those who view the issue the same way as Mr. Mast.

Finally, the congressman returns to using logos to make his case.

“I am confident I can eliminate an active shooter who is attacking with a pistol because the attacker would have to be close to me. But the defense my concealed 9-millimeter affords me is largely gone if the attacker is firing from beyond 40 yards, as he could easily do with the AR-15” (Mast). In my opinion, this is the strongest argument made in this article in favor of the ban. Mast specifically cites the difference between an attacker with a common handgun and an assault rifle, specifically an AR-15, and how shooting distance makes the AR-15 not only makes a situation more dangerous but takes away the defense a “good guy with a gun” could use. This quote also debunks a common phrase coined by opponents that “a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun.”

The Op-Ed ends with Congressman Mast listing the gun control policies that he supports. He also wanted accountability for those who were responsible for allowing Nikolas Cruz, the man who killed 17 students in the Parkland School Shooting to become a threat. One thing I should note is that Mast actually represents the district directly north of where the Parkland Shooting occurred, so that could have influenced Mast’s stance on gun reform.

Overall, I believe that Mast used Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in an extremely effective manner. I believe that since the party his party’s stance on gun control, especially on an assault weapons tends to be more pro-gun than pro-gun control, I believe that this article was appropriate because it shows that the issue of gun reform is not split alongside party lines. Plus this article, in my opinion, does a great job at reaching out to the opposing side to present his argument. I think in terms of effectiveness, it was A’s effective as an op-ed of a congressman bucking party lines and calling for other members of his party to join him could be.

Works Cited:

Mast, Brian. “I’m Republican. I Appreciate Assault Weapons. And I Support a Ban.” The New York Times. 23 February 2018. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/opinion/brian-mast-assault-weapons-ban.amp.htm

Analyzing Congressman Brian Mast’s New York Times Op-Ed was originally published in The Wilson Times on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

(http://abcnews.go.com/US/15-dead-horrific-florida-school-shooting-suspect-custody/story?id=53087462)

How it All Started:

February 14th, 2018. This was the date of the deadliest high school shooting in American History. It was on this date that Nineteen year-old former student Nicholas Cruz, using a gun he purchased in the state of Florida, opened fire on the school killing seventeen students and wounding fourteen others. Cue the same cycle of events that always happens after a mass shooting: Thoughts and prayers go out to the feelings; being told by politicians in power that “it’s too early to talk about gun control”; and moving on with our everyday lives like it never even happened. Except, the survivors of the shooting refused to let people move on and forget about what happened, they demanded action from their lawmakers. What happened next would change the course of history.

(http://time.com/5214072/march-for-our-lives-parkland-survivors/)

What Happened Next:

Three days after shooting the kids of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School spoke at gun control rally in the neighboring city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. One student named Emma Gonzalez gave a speech in particular that immediately went viral. Below is a small excerpt of her speech.

“Politicians who sit in their gilded House and Senate seats funded by the NRA telling us nothing could have been done to prevent this, we call BS. They say tougher guns laws do not decrease gun violence. We call BS. They say a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun. We call BS. They say guns are just tools like knives and are as dangerous as cars. We call BS. They say no laws could have prevented the hundreds of senseless tragedies that have occurred. We call BS. That us kids don’t know what we’re talking about, that we’re too young to understand how the government works. We call BS” (CNN).

This speech lit a spark with young people who were fed up with inaction from lawmakers. After this speech students from across the country mobilized in support of gun control and in solidarity with the Parkland Survivors. One month after the shooting there were national student walkouts where kids walked out of school to protest gun violence and demand comprehensive gun control. Then ten days later over 1.2 million people across the United States marched in the Parkland student organized March For Our Lives, including anywhere from 200,000 to 800,000 students in Washington D.C. (Lopez). This activism wasn’t just about taking a stand however, it was about demanding change. While that change only represented a minor new School Safety Law at the Federal Level, at the state level it was a much different story.

(http://blog.timesunion.com/wagingpeace/walking-and-chewing-gum/4525/)

Gun Control Measures Taken After the Parkland Shooting:

After the shooting, new developments found that the shooter Nicholas Cruz had a lengthy prior history of unstable behavior. Margaret Kramer and Jennifer Harlan of The New York Times reported that on top of his expulsion from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High school Cruz had stalked a female student, made posts on social media about how he had tortured and killed animals, his stepmother had called the police on him numerous times, almost being sent to a psychiatric home by school counselors and sheriff’s deputies, and even previous tips to the F.B.I. warning them that Cruz was dangerous (Kramer, Harlam). Needless to say had there been Universal Background Checks, he never would have gotten the gun and this shooting possibly never would have happened. After these developments, the Parkland students led a rally at the Florida state capitol in Jacksonville demanding new gun control legislation. And for the first time in twenty years, the state of Florida passed and signed into law new gun control regulations that established Universal Background Checks and raised the age to buy a gun in Florida to 21, despite the NRA’s opposition. But it wasn’t just Florida who passed new gun control measures after Parkland.

According to Pew Research Center following the Parkland Shooting, 67 new gun laws were passed in 27 different states (Vasilogambros). These include Washington which raised its age minimum to purchase a gun to twenty-one, and Oregon which banned those previously convicted of domestic violence to carry a gun (Seelye, Bidgood). However, some states have taken the opposite approach, with members of the South Dakota State House passing a bill that would allow people to carry guns in schools and in churches. Also in Idaho and Wyoming, new “Stand Your Ground Laws” were passed that says that one can use deadly force without attempting to remove oneself from the situation (Abreu, Zegers). Also after the Democrats retook control of the House of Representatives, they immediately introduced a gun control bill, however even if it passes the house it’s almost certain to fail in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Ultimately, where we stand now is that 2018 had the highest rate of gun violence ever recorded(Trace), and this debate about gun control is only going to increase. That being said, the impact of the Parkland students and students across the country has already been seen at the state level. The questions I will tackle in this blog is: what gun control policies work, how can we tell that they are working, and what can we learn from each side of the gun debate? However, when it comes to Parkland I don’t want the victims who lost their lives to be forgotten. Below are the names of the students who lost their lives in the shooting.

Aaron Feis

Alaina Petty

Alex Schachter

Alyssa Alhadeff

Cara Loughran

Carmen Schentrup

Chris Hixon

Gina Montalto

Helena Ramsay

Jamie Guttenberg

Joaquin Oliver

Luke Hoyer

Martin Duque Anguiano

Meadow Pollack

Nicholas Dworet

Peter Wang

Scott Beigel

(NPR)

Regardless of personal belief about gun control, I believe it is important to honor those who were lost, and to remember their names instead of the name of the killer. May god bless them and may their souls forever rest in peace.

(https://www.upi.com/News_Photos/view/upi/1035a51a309f987c6677b55e469cb4d9/Commemorating-The-Anniversary-of-the-Parkland-Florida-School-Shooting/)

Works Cited:

Hampton, Rick. “After Parkland shooting: A day-by-day fight over guns in America”. USA Today. 26 December 2018.

Vasilogambros, Matt. “States Passed 67 New Gun Laws in 2018” Pew Research Center. 14 December 2018. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2018/12/14/states-passed-67-new-gun-control-laws-in-2018

“Florida student Emma Gonzalez to lawmakers and gun advocates: ‘We call BS’”. CNN. 17 February 2018. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/17/us/florida-student-emma-gonzalez-speech/index.html

Lopez, German. “It’s official: March for Our Lives was one of the biggest youth protests since the Vietnam War”. Vox. 26 March 2018. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/26/17160646/march-for-our-lives-crowd-size-count

Gray, Sarah. “Thousands of Students Walked Out of School Today in Nationwide Protests. Here’s Why”. Time Magazine. 14 March 2018. http://time.com/5195960/national-school-walkout-march-14/

Tesfaye, Sophia. “House Judiciary Committee poised to pass gun control bill one year after Parkland school shooting”. https://www.alternet.org/2019/02/house-judiciary-committee-poised-to-pass-gun-control-bill-one-year-after-parkland-school-shooting/

Seele, Katherine Q.; Bidgood, Jess. “What Are States Doing About Gun Violence After the Florida Shooting?” The New York Times. 26 February 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/us/gun-control-laws.html

Wamsley. Laurel; Gonzalez, Richard. “17 People Died In The Parkland Shooting. Here Are Their Names”. NPR. 15 February 2018. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/15/586095587/17-people-died-in-the-parkland-shooting-here-are-their-names

Abreu, Danielle; Zegers, Kelly. “Parkland Survivors Activism Spurred Wave of Gun Control Laws in 2018.” NBCMiami.com. 12 February 2019. https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/national-international/Parkland-Survivors-Activism-Sparks-Gun-Control-Legislation-505534491.html

Gun Control Post Parkland was originally published in The Wilson Times on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.