Writing Feedback / College Composition CLEP Essay - Need Critique of Concealed Carry Essay [3]

Good Evening Essay Forum. I am preparing to take a College Composition CLEP in which I will be required to write two essays. I would truly appreciate any and all feedback on the below practice essay. I'm open to all comments including grammar and content. Please remember that the essay does not necessarily reflect my views on the subject but was written based on the amount of personal knowledge I had of both sides of the debate.

synthesize the two sources provided - guns issue

DIRECTIONS:The following assignment requires you to write a coherent essay in which you synthesize the two sources provided. Synthesis refers to combining the sources and your position to form a cohesive, supported argument. You must develop a position and incorporate both sources. You must cite the sources whether you are paraphrasing or quoting. Refer to each source by the authors last name, or by any other means that adequately identifies it.

Introduction
Concealed carry (CC) refers to the practice of carrying a concealed weapon in public. The practice is controversial, particularly with respect to handguns.

Pro-CC View
Supporters of CC argue that it promotes safety, in that criminals are less likely to attack a person if they assume the person is armed. CC supporters also argue that having a gun allows one to protect oneself when actually attacked.

Anti-CC View
Critics of CC argue that it fosters greater crime, including unplanned shootings that occur during arguments. CC critics also argue that carrying a gun increases the frequency of unintended injuries.

Assignment
Consider the pro- and anti-CC arguments carefully. Then write an essay in which you develop a position on the practice of CC. Be sure to incorporate and cite arguments from both sides of the debate as you develop your position.

The practice of carrying a concealed gun though appealing to many pro-gun enthusiasts is outdated, impractical and extremely dangerous to the owner and public in general.

In an age of road rage, violent viral videos and easy access to guns and concealed carry permits; many citizens believe that carrying a gun is not only smart but a deterrent to crime. Unfortunately this is very rarely the case. The perceived power of a carrying gun can lead the gun owner to escalate a situation, which they would normally avoid. The average citizen has had at least a few tense encounters in their lifetime such as road rage or encounters with troublemakers at public events or even disagreeable co-workers or family members. How many of these events would have ended differently if a firearm had been introduced? When dealing with potentially unstable individuals producing a weapon may only exacerbate the situation pushing it to a level that neither party is able to walk away from. Police and other gun carrying civil servants are trained to diffuse situations and rarely have to resort to producing their weapon; whereas the average citizen most likely does not have any such training or experience. A police officer or other uniformed official is also perceived as an authority figure because of their uniform or badge. A criminal or unstable individual will recognize this authority and understand the potential consequences of challenging them. They most likely will not afford the same respect to a civilian gun owner; in fact they may feel they are being threatened and lash out in self-defense. Is the gun owner prepared to defend themselves and their firearm if the opposing individual(s) fights back?

Producing a gun against one or more potentially larger, stronger assailants could have the unintended effect of them attacking you. In a spontaneous, high stress situation the gun owner could fail to fire, fire and miss or even lose control of the weapon. At this point the attackers may be enraged and cause serious injury to the victim and potentially turn the owners weapon against them. Many concealed carry proponents will contend that these scenarios could be avoided with proper training and practice but as there are no training requirements for concealed weapon carriers in this state how many potential owners would actually bother? Proponents also don't address the potential aftermath of a gun owner actually pulling the trigger.

An often overlooked but extremely serious consideration of gun related incidents are the unintended consequences that occur as a result of the shooting. Immediately the gun owner becomes the assailant or even the murderer. An investigation may eventually absolve the shooter but the burden of proof to justify the shooting will be theirs. What if the only witnesses are friends of the victim? What if nobody witnessed the situation and only saw the gun owner produce a weapon and fire on the victim? These are all potentially life altering consequences that a person must consider before deciding to pull the trigger. Even in a completely justified situation what are the consequences to a bystander being hit or even killed by one of the owner's bullets. The gun owner could be facing a civil lawsuit for injury or even wrongful death. Legal fees, monetary awards and potential jail time could ruin an individual and their family both financially and emotionally. What are the potential emotional repercussions? How many of us have ever killed a person? Do we take time to fathom the guilt or remorse we may feel for taking a persons life? After years of war we are all familiar with the term Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and it's effect on war veterans. This same disorder can affect a private citizen who has shot and injured or killed a potential assailant or innocent bystander. The constant training I receive as a member of the Armed Forces and an employee of an Army Medical Center has made me aware that an average of 22 veterans per day commit suicide; most after having served in a combat zone. Many of these victims never killed an enemy combatant they simply witnessed the grim reality of death. How would causing and witnessing the same reality affect the average citizen?

This ongoing debate is not rooted in Hollywood bravado where the good guy prevails with his trusty sidearm, it's rooted in the reality of the modern world. There are serious considerations when choosing to carry a weapon. Proponents will argue that concealed weapons will prevent or even stop crime but is that truly the case? In November 2005 a young man named Dan Maldonado opened fire with an assault weapon at the Tacoma Mall in Washington state. During the course of the shooting a mall clerk rushed towards the gunman with his privately owned 9 millimeter handgun. Though he had the opportunity and justification to fire he hesitated upon seeing the youthful shooter. He ordered Mr. Maldonado to drop the weapon at which point the gunman fired 5 times striking Mr. McKown 4 times in the torso. Though he survived Mr. McKown was immediately paralyzed and the rampage continued until Mr. Maldonado surrendered to police. Incidentally, a second gun owner had the opportunity to fire on Mr. Maldonado but did not for fear of hitting innocent bystanders. Does the potential loss of a gun owner's life, freedom, financial stability and mental health outweigh the security of carrying a weapon? In my opinion the answer is unequivocally no!

Writing Feedback / I don't care how poor a person is; if he has family, he's rich - CLEP testing [4]

I'm making an early attempt at a CLEP essay for College Composition. Any helpful critiques would be great as I'd really like an honest opinion of my efforts.

Assignment: I don't care how poor a person is; if he has family, he's rich

CLEP essay for College Composition

The love, support and companionship of a family cannot be measured in any type of physical or traditional currency. Its worth is priceless. Since the beginning of time man has existed in a family or clan based environment much like many animals in the wild such as wolves, gorillas and our most closely related relative the chimpanzee. Abraham Maslow in his groundbreaking 1943 paper on basic human needs identified social inclusion as one of the four most critical human needs in his Hierarchy of Needs model.

Early man relied on his tribe or clan to hunt, provide food, raise offspring and combat rivals. Without the support of the clan they would have little to no chance of long term survival. I would venture to say that during this period, predating traditional forms of currency, the inclusion into a clan or similar family group would have provided the most valuable currency of all; survival.

In the middle ages, extended family groups living communally was commonplace. Members would work to tend crops and livestock, raise children, care for the elderly and again protect themselves and their property. In many cultures the penalty of being banished from the clan as an outcast was akin to a death sentence as an individuals chance of survival was remote.

The existence of communal family living has all but vanished in modern times but an extended family relationship is still vital to modern man. Social networking has introduced a new form of family communication as members can share experiences, photos and videos in real time from anywhere in the world. A family bond ensures companionship no matter how geographically distant. With a few mouse clicks or keystrokes families can provide comfort, share important news, send holiday greetings or even forward funds. This type of readily available family support though not traditional in a physical way can be critical even lifesaving to a family member in distress.

The priceless value of family has been demonstrated throughout the history of the planet as in most instances it means survival. When faced with death, hunger or even loneliness there is no physical currency that can provide the priceless, lifesaving comfort and support of family.