Friday, October 7, 2011
Group 2: Carrying concealed weapons on a college campus
Our video we posted is about carrying concealed weapons on campus. The controversy about this topic is that carrying weapons on campus would make everyone feel safer, the students that are carrying the weapons, and the rest of the student population. After events such as Columbine, or the Virginia Tech shooting, this is a valid argument. The other side in the video is that more guns does not equal more safety, and that having students with guns would lead to more problems. Please contribute your thoughts and opinions on students with guns on campus.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is understandable that an idea like this would be sparked due to the Virginia Tech shooting. That was a wake-up call for all Universities all over the country. Of course a greater sense of fear would bring the idea of more guns, for safety. Both Mike and Bill offer great opinions on the issue. It would be great to think that if only concealed weapon holders carried guns around everyone would be safer, but I don't believe that is true. Bill, the FBI agent points out that especially on college campuses, partying and drinking go on and to bring guns into that situation would be bad for everyone. I feel as though if guns were brought onto a college campus and allowed to be carried throughout campus, especially where there is drinking, shootings would be significantly increased. People make stupid mistakes when they are drunk, why would we want them to carry a gun and accidentally shoot someone. Both of the individuals use a great deal of logos to explain their opinions. They use their expertise and facts to make us (the audience) logically think guns are good or bad for campus. Do I see this law getting passed any time soon, no. There is too much of a risk involved.
ReplyDeleteIn this text, Mike and Bill give reasoning for and against carrying concealed weapons on campus. No concealed licensed holder has been convicted is something Mike uses for his argument. The idea that license holders haven't been sent to jail is input, to give reasoning and outreach with logos. Mike goes for the logical way of thinking by pointing out that people with concealed weapons are not dangerous. He also is trying to make people think of the protection that will be given especially to females who are a primary target. Pathos play into part with the protection for females because he's showing feelings of protection for ladies, something that parents look for when it comes to their children. Bill reasons that students with concealed weapons are in a location that is not safe for weapons. The environment of a college campus and what goes on isn't what some would say a safe area for concealed weapons. Logos are being performed by Bill, as well to express his point. He's trying to make people think of the consequences that can occur from the weapons and show that this idea is a dangerous one. They both are reaching out to the audience and trying to make them think on whether or not this is a good idea.
ReplyDeleteIn the video. The former FBI investigator Bill pointed out that the answer for campus safety is not more guns. He says we have trained police to react to the crime happens on campus. This statement is very persuasive to the audience because it is told by a former FBI who is experienced with that kind of emergency.And he analyzes this answer in a very professional perspective indicating that police will be confused by the gun shoot around them.Using this method,the FBI investigor make the audience feel he is familiar with such kind situation. In other word, he makes the audience believe what he says is right.
ReplyDeleteThis video shows Ethos an appeal that relies on trustworthiness, credibility, and reputation of the speaker. The speaker Mike Guzman doesn’t have evidence to support his claims. For example, stated in an email by the police, he talks about how Utah has being safe since they started carrying guns to campus; they haven’t had any incidents since then. This has nothing to do with the guns being carried to campus, which means the credibility involved in his statements are not good enough. Also, this video uses Pathos or feelings. It talks about how family would feel about their kids carrying weapons. They also talk about prior incidents that happened in the past for example Virginia Tech. He uses gender, young adult females as the main target.
ReplyDeleteIt is commonly said that having a gun or doing self-defense martial art could be best way to protect by themselves anywhere. When all is said done, however, it is safe to say that even good-nature people can be raise a horrible crime by an impulsive action. In this video, Mike asserts that it does not matter if student possessing a weapon in the campus based on Logos. His main point is that it does not matter when student using a weapon in campus by wielding an authority in campus, which is corresponding with Logos. Also, he brought a person to his senses inducing people considering about conviction of safety based on Pathos. Bill, whereas, conveying a message that just because having a weapon is not convict all the safety of students in campus. The common analysis both of these two announcer’s statement is that the things that already existing, licensed using weapons and police in campus.
ReplyDeleteSince more and more college shooting events had happened in this country, more and more people agreed with the idea that carrying guns to school is a way to protect them. People feel safer when they are carrying guns by themselves. However, according to Bill, the FBI agent, it is more risky that people carrying guns to school than they are not. I do not believe that carrying guns to school is safer for students. More guns in the college means more chances that people could shoot and more chances that people get shot. For example, when a student has some problems with his classmate and both of them are angry, they may shoot at each other if they have gun with them. If there are no guns, they could just shout at each other and fight. Guns bring college more risky elements and bringing guns to school is not a good way to protect students.
ReplyDeleteIn the video both sides of the argument use ethos to argue their point. On one hand you have a former marine and on the other an fbi agent. both should have extensive knowledge of firearms. both sides also use logos to convey their points. Guzzman uses stats about how trustworthy people with concealed carry licenses are and also quotes prominent police officials who would support pro gun legislation. the FBI agent uses logos by saying that mixing guns with drinking and partying, and in close living quarters of dorms is not a good combination. it is interesting to note that the drinking and partying happen off campus and thus the ban of guns on campus is irrelevant in this regard. Guzzman also uses pathos to try and convince you by saying that young female college students are often a victim of sexual assault and should be allowed to defend themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe video is more like a debate or discussion including various ideas rather than personal thoughts. In this way, the audience can feel that they are involved into the topic. Logos and pathos are both used in the video. However, Mike's statement seems weak without strong supporting sources. The other side uses a statement from Texas State U to demonstrate that this right may not be pushed by the universities, especially after the Virginia Tech shooting. By showing evidences, the FBI agent Bill makes his opinion more persuasive. Also, the "live" sign at the top left corner plays an important role. It conveys a sense of authenticity and participation to the audience.
ReplyDeleteThough this interview is for the Fox News, the interviewee is only a student who does not have much authority. And he is a former marine which suggests he has military background. Because of this background, he might be more violent and aggressive than the other students. Therefore his idea of carrying concealed guns on campus can not stand for the idea of the other non military students on campus. However, he uses logos method such like the Utah University that is the first university to allow concealed guns on campus. And Utah University has had no incident since permitting guns on campus. On the other hand, this news lack of ethos to move the audience. The interview is very formal and has only few details to move the audience.
ReplyDeleteMike Guzman, a member of students for concealed carry on campus, is a former marine who feels citizens who already have concealed carry licenses should be permitted to carry concealed weapons on college campuses. He uses Utah as an example of a successful trial of such action since citizens in that state have been able to carry concealed weapons on college campuses for the last year. He brings up the point that so far there has been no incidents to report. He uses this as a means to fight any claim that guns on campuses would cause more problems than they would solve. He also uses the claim that concealed carry license holders are fourteen times less likely to commit a crime as a way to further support his point that people with licenses are responsible. Bill Daily, a former FBI investigator, feels differently about the situation. He believes the answer to campus security is not more guns. He claims that security officials on campus have been better trained to respond to incidents such as what occurred on Virginia Tech's campus. He believes college campuses are a poor environment for more guns due to the youth and activities that occur on such campuses. He portrays the college environment as one full of peer pressure, drinking, and poor decision making making it seem as if college students are unfit for the responsibilities of carrying a concealed weapon even if they meet the requirements set by the state.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am posting the following for Braxton:
ReplyDeleteThe controversy about students carrying weapons around campus to feel safer is definitely not a good idea. Carrying weapons will cause many more problems. First,all the activites going on around campus, for example, two student drivers are at a stop sign while many students are crossing the street. While the two student drivers are getting angry at the crossing students because they are taking advantage of the two drivers patience. Both drivers start to cuss and beep their horns. One driver pulls out a pistol and starts shooting in the air to get everybody's attention. This is why no students should be carrying guns on campus.
Both Guzman and Daly used ethos, pathos and logos in their explanations. I would say that Guzman used more logos than ethos and pathos while Daly's used more of the latter two than logos.
ReplyDeleteGuzman,using logos, first talks about how people who carry concealed weapons in their everyday lives should also be able to carry them on campus by saying that "campus isn't a magical environment" that would suddenly make them "lose all sense of logic". He also gives the list of places like the grocery stores, theaters, shopping malls, and banks which the students usually go to. Therefore he's making his point through a logical point which also enables people to sympathize, since that's where they go everyday. He uses more logos by stating his findings on Texas's capital murder and how Utah had no incidents over the year that they've had allowed concealed weapons on campus. At the end, he uses ethos by saying that a police officer, whose daughter goes to Texas State, thanked him for what he's doing.
Daly, unlike Guzman, used more ethos and pathos. He used logos once, when he, at the beginning of his saying, said that more policemen are trained and reacting to campus type crimes and therefore more guns are not necessary to campus security. Then he used ethos when he said campus is not the "right environment" for concealed weapons since there are "younger people, and students off by themselves without parental control." Here, he's appealing to our emotion's towards "younger people", and making an assumption that students in college are not yet ready to make the right decision without their parents' help.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe ethos, pathos, and logos can be easily deduced from this news piece. Ethos is used by simply having the FOX logo in the corner. FOX is a major news broadcasting agency and even though news stories coming from them have been known to be skeptical, they are pretty credible. The pathos comes from the topic of discussion. After the Virginia Tech shootings, there have been many movements towards allowing guns on campuses. However, as my classmates have already pointed out, logos used by the FBI agent clearly states that if we combine firearms with college life, there will be more accidents.
ReplyDeleteMike, from Texas, uses a lot of pathos in his argument. The Virginia Tech massacre is an event that will pluck the heart strings of many of the viewers. Using this argument the viewer will more likely feel swayed to the side of agreeing with allowing conceal and carry on campuses. The man from the FBI uses a lot of ethos and logos in his argument saying that guns plus alcohol would not be a good idea at all. This is both ethos and logos because of his previous position in the FBI, and because he simply has a very logical argument. Word.
ReplyDeleteMike is also, whether intended or not, making the point that the 'bad guys' so to speak will continue to have them regardless of the bill or not. This on it's own is enough to persuade a few into changing their minds and supporting his cause. Mike also uses larger words such as "advocate", "concealed weapons", "incidents" that may make this issue harder to grasp to the general audience (and therefore making something that seems super-polarized more in a gray area, simply because it is not easily understood). I also find it interesting that he doesn't use simple words, instead "Capitol murder", "crime"- all words that are easier to digest to the public.
ReplyDeleteBill, on the other hand, uses the opposite tactic- by using harsher words, some that hit closer to home (dorm vs. campus, shooting vs. "incident", guns vs. concealed weapons) he is essentially "cutting the crap" out of his argument and slamming the issue in the face of the audience. He also tries to pull at the hearts of the parents by using phrases such as "off on their own", directing his attention to the audience that is most likely to get up and vote for or against the issue.
In the video the more credible figure initially is the FBI investigator, while the other individual is simply a part of a national group pushing for gun rights. Mike throughout the piece is trying to gain credibility throughout the interview by stating many facts and numbers and many individuals who support what he is doing. The interviewer even helps him halfway through by stating that he was a marine himself. In addition to him gaining credibility he talks for the majority of the interview and has an opportunity to talk twice while the FBI investigator is only allowed to talk once. Also while both are talking the video never cuts from Mike but during the FBI investigators interview it cuts away to images of police carrying weapons which could be used to draw the watcher into the video and rather what the investigator has to say.
ReplyDelete