英语写作-Summary范文.docx

Oliver Huang Dr. Flanagan, Ryan PPrinciples of English Gun Control : Need ? Should ?24 October 2017Marketing Catalog Xiangxi Liu claims in his essay “Gun Control? NO!” published on Zhihu website in 2016 that there is no need for government in America to achieve gun control thoroughly. He emphasizes that Americans need guns as protection in case because of inadequate police distributing over America. “If the nearest police station is 45-minutes-ride away your home, what can you do without guns when some bad guy is trying to break into your house?” He said, “Call 911? Or just call for an ambulance.” He offers a story of his friend who was attacked at home without guns and his own experience as a gun-taking agent for federation as an illustration. Its understandable to believe Xiangxi argued as above basing on his desire to make response to questioners in the website. Besides, considering his job as gun-taking agent for government, it can be assumed that he wanted to express his own ideas about gun control which he thinks are clear enough to help insight this issue. In “The NRA thinks youre stupid” (2017) published on CNN, Michael A. Nutter argues that National Rifle Association(NRA) has no sincerity to take action on gun control. He points out that the leaders in NRA chose political distraction instead of real gun safety reform because of the great benefits from guns. According to Michael, the attitude of NRA is not satisfactory because “It is an amazing display of disingenuous and cynical political sleight of hand that, the NRA grudgingly agrees that some regulation of these devices is OK.” To support his argument, the author quotes what NRA said to its supporters “it is OK to support some regulation of bump stocks”, and also offers questions both straight and emotional to challenge NRAs motivation and sincerity. As far as Michaels profession is concerned, a reporter for CNN, it can be assumed that his argument is not only about his thoughts but to gain greater amount of readers as well.In a 2015 article published in Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, Wolfgang Stroebe insists that gun prevalence is positively related to homicide rates. The argument outlines that there is no evidence for a protective effect of gun ownership and contrarily for the unsafe aspect. As what Stroebe suggests in his article, although guns are not a primary determinant for homicide, their efficacy as murder instruments just makes it easier. The author shows a horrible mass-shooting event first following graph made of data about US household gun ownership rate and homicide rate, which are functioned as an illustration. Then a few other firearm-related deaths related gun-ownership are provided to further explain the similar influence gun prevalence has. Considering Stroebes identity as the emeritus professor of social psychology at Utrecht University and a senior researcher, who has gain reputations, its reliant to believe he writes this article to make contributions to the field Social Psychology which he devoted decades to studying. In assay “Unpacking Heat: Dueling Identities and Complex Views on Gun Control among Rural Police” published in Rural Sociology, Rachael A. Woldoff, Robert C. Litchfield and Angela Sycafoose Matthews argue that officers view about gun control varies as their multiple identities change in the life, such as police trying to control dangerous situations with guns they encounter and citizens who desire guns as self-protection. “Officers symbolically rejected the concept of gun control and instead supported individuals gun rights while most of them distanced themselves from gun-related aspects of rural identity”, the authors say. However, authors also point out that when it comes to on-the-job experiences, most of them shows concern about bad influence gun-ownership has on everyday life and also desire to control it. This article is mostly basing on an opinion research about rural polices attitude to gun control, which covered 200 towns in rural areas. Also, the testimonies of incumbent police make the argument convincing. Like what the authors write in the article, they want to make supplementary contributions about what views rural officers possess on gun control, which is understandable to believe on account of their professions including scholars and officer from FBI. And there is possibility that they want to gain reputations for higher positions in career.RecommendationFor the first article: 1) Unlike most people in China, Liu contradicts gun control in America, which is likely to appeal to people who have similar opinions. They will certainly know more about gun control and may reaffirm their view. And the supporters of gun control may also read this to find mistakes it has. 2) However, basing on lots of experiences of him and his friends, I can feel a tone of subjectivity, though he offers some results of researches supporting the argument. Overall, its trustworthy to read this essay considering the profession of the author.For the second article: 1) As we all know, NRA has a complicated reputation and influence around the America. Almost everyone interested in guns issue takes care of its movements. Therefore, an essay criticizing NRA will certainly attracts audiences mainly as above and people caring about politics. What they will gain includes backgrounds of gun control and the more specific relationship between NRA and guns. 2)There are many direct questions the author asks to NRA, which are consistent in logical and thus powerful. What worried me most is the lack of the data and results from rigorous researches and analysis. For the third article: 1) Even if gun control has been a hit for years, academic articles related this issue are still hard for people who are little educated. Nevertheless, the language there is not much scholarly so that I suppose the readers will not only be experts well educated in associated fields but also people really interested in this issue. Its really a good chance for them to understand deeply about gun control from a deeper and more intellectual view. 2)What impressed me most is that the author has shown a strongly logical collaboration among the events as example, graphs made of data collected, and the analysis from researches. However, a slightly subjective attitude can be felt reading the article. For the forth article: 1) The language in this article is a little sophisticated and contains academic terms. But the topic about rural officers opinions towards gun control is unique compared to the former essay related to this issue. Therefore, people with an upper level of education and who care about rural areas or care about gun control and officers opinions to it can be the ideal audience. 2)As far as Im concerned, this article has a pretty abounded evidence about quotations and references which seems like burdens hampering the proof of their argument. Maybe there should be more mathematical models to support it and make the conclusions more credible. 3)As a native Chinese, who grew up in a country that has an extremely ban on guns, I really dont have think too much about gun control and gun violence until I happened to know a series of mass-shooting in America, which shocked me a lot. At first, I feel quite unbelievable that there is a country where people can buy guns freely, then I wonder why. Maybe after researching the papers above I can figure out many questions in my mind about gun control. Perhaps I can understand why America doesnt or cant ban guns thoroughly though there is gun violence happening almost every year. (In fact, I have already known some reasons and answers after reading these articles mentioned above).4)Why can American people have gun privately? Is there any background in history and society? What is the number on average of the people dying from guns including both murder and commit suicide every year in America? Is there any groups of interest that are associated with guns? What do you think about gun control if you