I need two responses of at least 150 words each for the below students discussions for this week. Also in the bold below are the questions the students at answering.
In your response to your classmates, comment on the persuasiveness of your classmate’s speech – do not comment on whether or not you agree with the issue. Did this student follow the Rogerian format? Why or why not?
A problem that many Americans face is getting a job with a record. It could be a criminal or even a bad financial record and it deters Americans from being able to provide for themselves and their families. Background checks should be more limited in scope to prevent employers from making biased decisions about an applicant’s past history. Background checks are still important, especially for certain jobs. Such as working for the government, working with kids, or working with large sums of money. They just need to be narrower. Employers should not have rights to so much private information without knowing the full story. Say a person was wrongfully accused and was arrested but never charged, well that arrest will still stay on a person’s record for a long time which is accessible for employers to see during a background check.
Even if someone was convicted of a crime that was a past mistake it still should not be viewable to an employer unless it directly interferes with the actual job duties. If an applicant fell on hard times and filed for bankruptcy it should never be the employer’s business to know about such personal hardships and be judged by it. Instead of eliminating background checks they should be heavily filtered to specific crimes or financial histories that would adversely affect the company. A company should want to know about fraud histories if an applicant would be working with social security numbers but does not need to know about a reckless driving incident from five years ago. Anyone applying for a job should be given a fair chance. Both sides benefit from a filtered background check because an applicant’s personal history will not be fully displayed and businesses will still be able to identify specific direct threats to their company.
I certainly have used the Rogerian method before. I’ve used it for school and for work. My major is legal studies and most legal/political issues that are addressed come in the form of the Rogerian method. I’ve written many essays in the Rogerian style without knowing the proper name for it until now. I’m sure I will be using this method for a long time during my career. I would even use this method for personal situations because I prefer arguments that work towards a middle ground.
I decided to write about gun control this week. I am a huge gun fan and fully support the right to bear arms. I picked this argument because I feel as if there is a lot of absolutism on both sides and compromise is hard to agree on.
I have used this style of argumentation a lot in my life. I have been married for over ten years and understand fully that my marriage wouldn’t last if it weren’t for compromise. I look forward to all of your comments:
The writers of the United States Constitution lived through a time of a tyrannical government and civil unrest. The importance of guns was of monumental in ensuring that the United States would not be just a commonwealth of Britain. The Second Amendment guarantees that a tyrant government never has a chance to survive on this soil.
Today, we see the news and are blown away by the normalized occurrence of innocent lives being taken by a criminal with a gun. Every year, thousands of lives are ended by a criminal who shouldn’t have had a gun in the first place. We see pictures of victims, grieving families, and communities forever changed. Too often, we witness the tears of someone who lost a parent, sibling, friend, or child. It is evident that there must be a change in how guns are obtained in this country.
A full out gun ban is unconstitutional and would punish the law-abiding because of the acts of senseless criminals. The country must work together to find a way to stop criminals from attaining a firearm while ensuring the law-abiding do not lose their rights.
First, there must be a shared database where law enforcement on all levels can identify a violent criminal. Too many times, violent individuals have obtained firearms because of loopholes in the reporting system. If the FBI can see it, then the local constables should see it as well. Statistics don’t lie, and law enforcement should be able to remove all firearms from the residence immediately.
Secondly, when firearms are unattended, they must be locked up. Most Second Amendment supporters understand the importance of securing their weapons. Sadly, many guns still get left unattended, unsecured, and ready to use by anyone but the owner. Adam Lanza used his mother’s weapon, and if it were adequately secured, he would have never had the chance to take as many lives as he did. Education and culture change is needed with firearm safety.
There is common ground in the gun control debate. No one will be 100% happy but the idea of compromise is how this country was built. Together, there must be reasonable safety precautions in regards to firearms while ensuring the right to bear arms remains infringed.