Gun Rights

Posted: December 10th, 2013

write a synthesis of the essays The Right to Bear Arms by Warren Burger and A God-Given, Natural Right by Roger McGrath.

In your critique, you were asked to identify the central claim of the essay and analyze how the evidence did (or did not) support that claim. A Synthesis is not, as we discussed in the lecture, merely two critiques placed into a single essay (though you will undoubtably need to utilize your critiquing skills to analyze these arguments. A Synthesis is an argument that focuses on a specific intersection between two other arguments. The first step, before writing anything, therefore, is to try to understand what the two arguments are trying to accomplish, what points they are making, and how they are making them. As we learned in the critique, there are many, many aspects to each argument.

Once you determine where points and issues are relevant to both articles, you should then focus on a thesis that you can make about these two arguments. For example: you might choose to focus on their disagreement about the effectiveness of gun regulations in addressing violent crime. Or you might look at their arguments about the intentions of the Founding Fathers. (It’s important to recognize that these are entirely different arguments, and evidence from one cannot necessarily serve as proof of the other.)

Your thesis will be designed to tell us how we should understand their arguments in relation to each other. Think of it as helping someone who is trying to figure out what they should take away from these two articles about this aspect of the debate. (And keep in mind that you could assert that neither is effective. Or you could even just make clear to us what baseline assumptions the authors are relying upon to make their arguments which is still helpful to the reader, who may or may not share those assumptions.)

“The effectiveness of gun regulations” is merely one possible intersection of their arguments. Though they are not speaking to each other directly, the authors are touching on many of the same issues. Some possible avenues of discussion and intersection:

1) The intent of the Founding Fathers with the 2nd amendment

2) What limits do the authors envision, if any, on our right to self-protection?

3) Use of analogies, especially related to our inherent rights

There are many ways to focus on just those three ideas and there are many more possible intersections for these arguments.

As you work through the relation between these two arguments, consider the ways that each author might respond to the other’s points, based upon what they have said in their arguments. (For example: McGrath argues that we have an inherent right to self protection and to hunt. Does Burger’s argument agree or disagree or even just allow for either idea?)

Your thesis itself should focus on this intersection and your summaries and critique of those arguments should also be specific and relevant to the argument you are trying to put forward. Everything you write should in some way be trying to help you prove your thesis.

As with the critique, determine what evidence from the text will help you prove the point you are making. When you use your evidence, be sure to explain why that evidence proves what you say it does. (Remember: quotes are not self-explanatory.)

Remember to be critical skeptical not just of points you disagree with but also points you suspect may be correct. Do not assume that merely because an author claims to prove something that they have. Do not assume that merely because one author claims to disagree with another that they actually do. Try to understand what evidence and logic is proving or failing to prove.