Dearest Reader: After getting my first draft reviewed I realized I had a lot of work in store for me.

I decided to revamp / reword my thesis. I also realized that I needed to fix my conclusion I spent some time on fixing my first and last paragraph. The biggest potential weaknesses that I think I have would probably be to see how well my evidence supports my claims. I feel that after redoing my first and last paragraph are working and flowing well. My intended audience is for people to understand that the US and its gun laws are in fact working, and bettering the safeness of America. I would actually like some harsh or good feedback because I believe that it will ultimately help me in the end. So feel free to do as much as you want. Guns in America will always be present; there is no way of getting rid of them. However with laws like concealed carry, required background checks, and government regulation the US is becoming a safer place. The ultimate problem with the purchasing of guns illegally in the US may never be solved, but with strict laws and regulations it may further the safety of citizens. The state of Illinois for example has recently allowed concealed carry in Chicago. The concealed carry law is the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity. Illinois being one of the hardest states to pass any type of bill recently passed the common sense law in order to protect its people. The common sense law states that there will be harsher background checks, and that people have and up to date F.O.I.D. card. A firearms identification card is typically referred as a F.O.I.D. card and those allow individuals to purchase a weapon. However for the rest of the US what can the NRA do to help make people that oppose gun control feel like it actually works, and that these current and new laws are effective.
Comment [RS2]: Its a good idea to give the definition of concealed carry law but I think you should make it its own paragraph. Comment [RS1]: Thesis? Formatted: Highlight

Currently Illinois is under a new law, and this law is called the common sense law and it allows citizens of the state to apply for a concealed carry permit. However, the law states that their will be background checks that will look at your past, possible mental issues etc. In a factual manner Mark Guarino a staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor writes about the new Illinois law involving concealed carry. Guarino begins his argument stating that many states do not require some sort of background checks to private sellers. However: This common-sense law will help our law enforcement crack down on crime and make our streets safe. By providing this valid information on this new common sense law it may make citizens in Illinois feel safer because of the cops cracking down on gun related crimes. Hence creating a better standard of gun control within the city of Chicago and also Illinois. This is safer because in the past all someone needed was a F.O.I.D card. Which is a firearm owners identification card, and with that card there was no background tests just a twenty four hour wait period then you can pick up your weapon. That is not the only safety precaution that will be put into effect in twenty fourteen. A law that will require police action will also be strictly enforced for the safety of the community. Quinn also announced that Illinois is joining seven other states and the District of Columbia in requiring gun owners to alert law enforcement within 72 hours of their guns being lost or stolen. According to ABC news More than 62,000 guns disappeared from U.S. firearm dealers' inventories in the past three years without any record that they were sold. Hence this new reason to contact your local police and inform them on what has happened. Now with this new law the possibility of that happening is slim. This law could also reduce the amount of stolen guns being sold on the black market as well.
Comment [RS9]: Comment [RS10]: You can introduce the quote to give the reader an idea of who is saying this. Comment [RS5]: Maybe say specifically Illinois because thats the state you are focusing on. Comment [RS6]: I dont think you have to put quotes around this. Comment [RS7]: I think you should explain the FOID card in one part of your paper instead of briefly explaining it then going back to give more details on it. Comment [RS8]: ***2014 Comment [RS4]: **However, Formatted: Highlight Comment [RS3]: You can also write it like this: Illinois is currently under a new law called the common sense law, which allows citizens to apply for a conceal carry permit.

Venturing into the city of Chicago instead of Illinois as a whole there are a lot of things going on involving concealed carry. Many people are worried about deadly shootings that ultimately can happen anywhere. With this new law in Chicago a set of regulations must be put into order regarding peoples safety within restaurants, CTA, Metra, and local stores etc. This being said how does this new law securely prevent public shooting from happening? Ray Long a writer for the Chicago tribune, and an avid writer of current events involving the Chicago land area states that: A series of provisions were designed to prevent people with mental health problems from getting guns. Without trying to target people only with a mental issue commit crimes like these is an understatement, but it will further prevent people with those conditions hurting helpless civilians. This was one of the main arguments that was brought up how can Chicago, and the state of Illinois better the safety of people from guns considering now just about anyone can carry a weapon. Background checks are a step in the right direction. This new law is a stepping-stone for people who believe that guns are not safe, because of the progress it is making. Not only are people with mental disabilities not allowed to carry, but also there will be classes with trained police, and FBI personal teaching people proper gun safety, and etiquette. Ray long states that: A person would have to complete sixteen hours of training before getting a gun. Therefore in order to get a concealed carry permit you must not only have a background check, but also sixteen hours of training how to properly use a weapon. The potential behind this is very high considering many people believe that any random person can own a weapon. However in this case thats not true and laws like this are still being produced to further control guns.
Comment [RS14]: Maybe give background checks its own paragraph. Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Highlight Comment [RS15]: States, Comment [RS12]: Mental illness Comment [RS13]: Conditions from hurting Comment [RS11]: States,

However there will always people who will oppose to the safeness of new laws, and background checks. Many people believe that being able to carry a weapon ultimately puts everyone at risk. The people most at risk are children who manage to get ahold of their parents gun. These accidents tend to be fatal unfortunately, and then its the guns fault instead of the untrained father or mothers mishaps. Lawrence Gostin, a professor at Georgetown University, believes that guns are dangerous even with constant new gun related laws. Gostin states,: Unlike other liberties, carrying firearms directly puts the gun owner, family, and community at risk. This is a valid point yet what about the liberty of driving a car peoples lives are in danger everyday they are on the road driving in a car, so should cars be banned as well? Another other analogy is kids at recess are throwing rocks at each other should rocks be banned. Yet people keep on saying that guns are the reason for mass shootings. Stated earlier Ray long mentioned that people are now required to have background checks. This will eventually lower the amounts of people with mental illnesses own a gun. Now thats not the only thing that gets blamed for gun related crimes the NRA, or National Rifle Association, tends to be blamed a lot. Foe For example, they support the second amendment which is the right to bare arms, and also the right to own automatic weapons that were recently used at the sandy hook shooting. Lee Fang agrees with that concept that the NRA isnt doing its real job instead the organization is just simply making money, and participating in political events. Fang states, that: In reality, it is composed of a half-dozen legal entities, some designed to run undisclosed attack ads in political campaigns, others to lobby and collect tens of millions of dollars in undisclosed, tax-deductible sums. Thats a good point however the NRA is always trying to exploited, because in the end they are the last people to
Comment [RS17]: Maybe: This will eventually decrease the number of individuals with a mental illness access to a firearm. Comment [RS16]: Maybe: There are those who oppose new gun control laws as well as background checks. Formatted: Highlight

blame. The NRA does participate in political events, but how else would they gain funding to keep the second amendment alive. The amount of public shootings in the last year has grown rapidly, and the problem is who or what do we blame in this situation. Many people believe that assault riffles, or automatic weapons should be illegal, because you can kill people a lot quicker then a semi- automatic weapon. The idea behind that is preposterous, because what happens to the people who own these weapon for self, or home defense. Without these types of weapons people may become helpless against a home invasion, thats a reason why these types of mass shooting weapons havent been outlawed. However thats not the case for all states in Illinois, it is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon. Fear plays a huge part in why people own guns, it makes that fear go away in a sense it makes you feel safe that you have a weapon to protect yourself. Lindsey Graham, a republican senator in South Carolina, agrees that these types of weapons cant be outlawed; because of the safety they have on peoplespeoples everyday lives. Graham states:, Fear is potent stuff: 48% of gun-owners told a new Pew Research Centre poll that protection is their main reason for owning a gun, up from 26% in 1999. Imagine not owning a weapon how many more people would be harmed because theres nothing to protect themselves. The law regarding this situation in fact can not be abolished people need to keep these guns in their homes for self protection. In spite of these tragic shootings like at Ssandy Hhook Elementary, many people ask what has the U.S done to protect people from something like that from happening again? Since sandy hook there has been a lot of new proposed laws, for example, have teachers, or a security team that carry weapons in the schools, or to have police stationed
Comment [RS20]: Maybe: people feel safer when they have a gun to protect themselves. Comment [RS18]: I like how you back them up and support them. Comment [RS19]: The number of public shooting in the last has grown rapidly.

at every school. Alan Mclean, a writer for the New York Times, states, that: 178 passed at least one chamber of a state legislature. 109 have become law. This is a huge number considering that not all laws even become passed, and especially ones that involve guns. For there to be one hundred and nine new laws spread out across America is a really big deal. Some of this these laws are a substantial upgrade to the current law for instance in New Jersey you didnt even need an ID that had a picture of you within the last ten years, now its every five. One other example in California to apply for concealed carry you need to see a psychiatrist, and pass their test to obtain a card. These new laws will in fact protect the people. Some of these new laws are requiring people to have gun permits. The fact that before some states didnt need that is insane however now if you dont own a gun permit you dont get a gun. Another law is background checks for all states stating that no person can buy a weapon without a background check through the government database. Yet people are so closed minded, and against guns that they only look at the bad, and not at the progress that America and its gun laws are making. These laws are huge and should be looked at with pride that we can accomplish things that quickly. However, laws cant stop everything people always mange to get there hands on things like drugs even with many drugs being illegal people still get ahold of them, and use them daily. In the hope that what happened in Newtown, Connecticut never happens again these laws are a stepping-stone for horrific events like that to occur again. To conclude, guns in America will always be present, there is no way of getting rid of them. However with laws like concealed carry, required background checks, and government regulation the US is becoming a safer place. The NRA has played a

Comment [RS21]: Or have a police officer stationed at every school?

Comment [RS22]: *** For instance,

Comment [RS23]: Dont need an I.D for what? This sentence confused me. Comment [RS24]: Also

Comment [RS25]: You cant purchase a gun

Comment [RS26]: Maybe: These new laws are stepping stone to ensure that situations like Newton, Connecticut never happens again. Try to reword this sentence.

substantial part to better the gun problems and gun crimes by getting involved in politics and putting ideas into the minds of politicians. Not only has the US improved its gun laws so has the state of Illinois. Illinois new concealed carry law has frightened citizens, but with laws behind it many people realize that there are hours of training, and governmental checks on people who apply for it. All in all, the US is evolving into a safer community by these new laws, and stricter gun control.

*** For your quotes the period goes inside the quotation. i.e (.) *** You can probably tell if the new laws has reduced crime rates in the Illinois. *** I think you should reread your paper and try to reword some of you sentences. I gave you a couple of suggestions. *** You should try to equally represent both viewpoint also. *** You did a good job with providing information on ways the government can reduce crime rates.