ENGL 102 APUS Week 3 Middle Ground Argument Discussion

ENGL 102

American Public University System


Question Description

I’m trying to learn for my Writing class and I’m stuck. Can you help?

Unlike the Toulmin and Rogerian methods where one side is argued over another, the Middle Ground argument mediates between two sides of an issue hopefully arriving at a compromise solution between two positions.

Please include both answers in one initial post with extra space between them.

Middle Ground Discussion: For this discussion, choose an issue that you wrote about previously in this course (either your Toulmin or Rogerian essay). Let the class know your previous claim and briefly how you proved this claim in your essay (essay attached). After this brief review discussion, discuss how you would have approached this particular topic if you were to write a Middle Ground argument, instead of a Toulmin or Rogerian argument. Would you have adjusted your claim? If so, what sort of adjustment would you need? Would you have to find additional sources about your topic in order to prove this new claim? Is a middle ground solution a more practical solution to your chosen issue? (200 words)

In your responses to your classmates on the Middle Ground discussion, let your classmate know which argument appears to be stronger: the original claim or the new middle ground claim. Please make sure to explain why. If you disagree with both claims, that’s fine – let your classmate know why you disagree in a bias-free manner.

Concluding Remarks: Secondly, during this course, you have read quite a few arguments, critiqued some of these arguments, and written essays using various methods of argumentation. Take a moment to consider your future courses at APUS and/or your current/future career field. How can you incorporate what you have learned into your career or education? (100 words)

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Surname 1 Gun Control The topic of gun control is a controversial and sensitive aspect that has been a subject of debate over the past years. Currently, there are mass shootings, and the problem has been discussed by many people on what can be the best solution. Rosen highlights the procedures of obtaining information from the National Tracing Center for her to deduce analysis and conclusion to determine laws and regulations of acquiring and owning gun control (2). She argued that there is a diversity of requirements, thus making the results of gun utilization and how the phenomenon affects the rates of crime. There are many sides of debates towards gun control, and people against it argue that controlling gun utilizations is not a solution to high rates of mass shootings, and the rights to own guns are not the solutions. On the other hand, people who are against ownership of guns argued that the existing challenges are generally due to firearms, such as high rates of crimes and mass shootings. Any patriotic citizen needs to be allowed to own a gun so that they can defend themselves from harm such as mass shooting cases and many more, and thus, gun control debate is a misfire. Shooters will still have access to firearms even when the strict gun rules are in place. Controlling firearms will not stop criminals from acquiring guns and eventually will not be a solution to high incidences of mass shootings. Criminals tend not to obey laws; hence whenever there is a chance, they quickly utilize them in public irrespective of the rules and regulations in place. It is according to Rosen that there are multiple misfires in gun control, and thus controlling it will not be a unique mechanism because criminals tend not to adhere to guidelines of demand and supply (12). The main reason is that heinous activities such as mass shootings lies exclusively on problems such as psychotic behaviors. Therefore, there is a need to develop a Surname 2 solution that should be utilized in deterring the criminal from doing or carrying out such acts in public. The current and the oldest laws have not been successful in enacting measures of gun control and regulation strictly because criminals tend to purchase them from anywhere. The government thus needs to look for alternative solutions that have resulted in the problems. People should understand that the issues of mass shooting performed by criminals are attained mainly because of the supply of illegal guns in the market. There is a lot of cash that exists in the black market, and thus, some people will benefit from the profits of selling illegals guns and thus selling it to the wrong hands. Rosen argued that although there are laws such as background checks and many more, criminals do not follow the right procedures, and so long as there is sufficient money to spend on purchasing them. Gun control rules and regulations infringe people`s rights to self-defense and personal safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), firearms utilized in self-defense are more than 2 million times annually. Law enforcement officers are not in a position to protect every person all the time. According to the Pew survey, 61% of men and 55% of women argued that strict gun control laws would make it hard for individuals to protect their families and property. The right to self-defense is a fundamental right that arises out of the right to life. Therefore, gun control will interfere with the capability of law-abiding people to defend themselves against criminals. According to multiple studies, people who owned guys argued that they feel much safer. Gun control regulations give too much power to the state and may lead to tyranny. Also, background check and micro-stamping is an invasion of privacy. Background checks need the country to develop databases that keep personal data on gun owners such as name, address, Surname 3 criminal history, mental health information, and many more. Some laws allow people to exercise their rights without being subjected to state surveillance. Many researchers have argued ownership of guns is not related to suicides. For instance, Japan has the lowest gun ownership rates, but with the highest suicides, about 18 per 100 00 people. The assumption that restrictions or eradication of firearms would have a positive impact on the suicide rates in the United States does not hold up under scrutiny. Overall, it is evident from Rosen`s arguments that having strict gun laws does not primary relates to the reduction of criminal activities and mass shootings. There are inverse correlations that have been confirmed in states that have tight gun rules with the incidence of robbery being evaluated of the same in these towns. Effective strategies need to be put in place to stop mass shootings rather than the utilization of gun restrictions to the general public. Gun control is not an effective way of solving the current crisis. Work Cited Rosen, Meghan. "Misfires in the Gun Control Debate." Audiobook. ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer




Middle Ground Argument
Institution Affiliation(s)



Middle Ground Argument
Part One
The previous claim claimed that strict gun laws do not relate to the reduction of mass
shootings and criminal activities. This claim was proved by several types of research in that there
was an inverse correlation between having strict gun rules and the reduction in illegal activities.
States with stri...

Doctor_Ralph (21995)
Cornell University

Return customer, been using sp for a good two years now.

Thanks as always for the good work!

Excellent job

Similar Questions
Related Tags