Blog Post #3
“I was a Marine.I Don’t Want a Gun in My Classroom.” by Anthony Swofford is a perfect example of what Joe Harris calls countering. This article addresses Swofford’s opinion on gun control after the recent school shooting in Florida. The author essentially refers to President Trump latest speech on gun control and arming teachers and counters it powerfully. Swofford captures the reader with his ethos and establishes that his opinion is relevant on the topic of gun control because he is an ex-marine and currently a professor at West Virginia University.
Swofford sets up his argument by speaking about his firearm training within the marines and specifically with M16 assault rifles, he then states that the perpetrator of the parkland school shooting possessed this weaponed legally with no hours of firearm training. He then presents something resembling a thesis saying; “There is no reason that any civilian, of any age, should possess this rifle” (1). This effective because though he is not necessarily countering a specific person it displays a clear explanation of his standpoint on this hot button topic.
In undercovering the values in play in discussing this topic Swofford presents arguments that the other side is making and then presents why he refutes them. For example he presents President Trump’s view that if a teacher was armed he could have done more than shield his students but disarm the shooter. Then Swofford presents the fact; “ As some studies have shown,even police officers have missed their target more than 50 percent of the time”(2). Flowing this he argues that there would have been more possible casualties and confusion if teachers were armed. This is effective in displaying his argument because it causes the reader to question Trump’s position because if those professionally trained to use guns such as police officers miss their target then how do we expect teachers to handle these weapons.
Overall Swofford presents his argument effectively and professionally. He is not attempting to bash the other viewpoint but simply display his reasoning for not wanting guns in schools. He is a very persuasive writer and causes the reader to look at different aspects and sides of the argument. His professionalism and civility in his argument makes his position even more appealing to the reader and allows them to resonate with his viewpoint and trust his credibility.
