For my example I chose, “Why I Will Never Carry a Gun in my Classroom,” written by Victoria Barrett. I think this is a well written example of countering, because she references outside sources then makes suggestions to have the article be more of a conversation. She opens up with a personal story using pathos to to touch on the readers emotion and to grasp our attention. She uses this story about a troubled student to guide her article and ideas, through transitioning with, “If this student had shown up with a weapon determined to harm us, what would my responsibility have been?” She touches upon Trump’s expressed support for arming teachers, where she disagrees civilly by arguing, “We will have confusion, possibly more tragedy and an exodus of educators at a time when our country can’t afford it.” She doesn’t simply say she disagrees with Trump or bash his ideas, but instead she presents reasoning by discussing how she would be protecting civilains rights to own and operate military-style weapons, and she will not do that. Barrett also brings up that the NRA would make mass amounts of money by arming teachers, but quickly diminishes their argument by explaining how she cannot justify taking a life, when her job is supposed to be about preparing young adults to succed. She feels as though teachers shouldn’t have to follow through with Trumps proposed “solution” when its only benefiting the NRA, not the students and teachers who have their lives at risk. I think Barrett’s argument was well written, she was clear about her thoughts and really appealed the reader’s emotions by providing insight to what arming teachers would do to her personally at her job. She brought up Trump and the NRA’s ideas about arming teachers, while respectfully explaining her point of view and how, since they are not teachers, do not understand what they would be asking her to do. She describes how teachers should not just accept this proposal as their solution, but instead work to find a better one.
