Reflection on My English Class Experience
Throughout this English class, my writing has really improved from where I started. At the beginning of the semester, I usually just wrote whatever came to mind and hoped it made sense. Now, I’ve learned how to organize my essays better and focus on creating stronger theses and smoother transitions. My writing feels more purposeful, and I’ve gotten better at backing up my ideas with real evidence instead of opinions. One thing that stood out this semester was working with different writing formats. Before this class, I didn’t have much experience with reflections or research-driven essays. Learning those formats pushed me to think about audience, tone, and structure in different ways. Having just one topic for every assignment helped a bit because I didn’t have to start completely from scratch each time. But it also made things tougher as the semester went on because I felt like I was running out of new sources, and a lot of what I found was either opinionated or repetitive. Finding solid, unbiased research took extra effort. Some assignments, like the annotated bibliography, confused me at first, but they ended up helping me stay organized. Peer reviews and feedback were also really useful, I learned a lot from seeing how others approached their writing. Balancing school, work, and life was challenging, but it taught me better time management and helped me stay consistent with my work.
Ayannia Gamble
Professor Ivey
English 211C
October 12, 2025
Permit Laws: Rights or Safety?
In America, the debate over gun control is not only ongoing but has become increasingly urgent in recent years because of tragic mass shootings, new laws proposed in Congress, and even the deployment of the National Guard in Washington, DC, in response to social unrest. These events keep public safety and individual rights at the forefront of public discussion. As lawmakers and citizens are forced to question what solutions will actually reduce violence, ideas like permit-to-purchase laws have gained national attention. This rhetorical analysis will compare and contrast two different perspectives. One viewpoint, supported by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, advocates for permit to purchase laws, which require individuals to undergo background checks and firearms safety training before buying a gun. The other opinion, written by Bailey Duran, speaks on individual rights and our freedom to carry. By breaking down how each side uses ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos to make their case, I’ll examine which argument connects better with its audience and what that reveals about the larger gun control debate.
In the article “Guns Save Lives and Should Not Be Taken Away,” Bailey Duran, a student at Liberty University says that the right to carry a gun is a nonnegotiable principle. She writes, “The freedom to carry a gun in this country is a privilege I refuse to take for granted” (Duran). Duran believes that it is one of the most valuable freedoms Americans have, and would defend it “with every ounce” of her body. Duran stresses that guns save lives and shares a personal story about how her parents taught her responsible gun ownership. She recalls feeling grateful that her mother carried a gun after her car was broken into, highlighting how firearms can provide a sense of protection (Duran). The Second Amendment, as Duran suggests, gives Americans the same sense of security as a God-given right to bear arms.
The John Hopskin Center for Gun Violence Solutions takes a more research based approach to the discussion on permit to purchase laws for firearms. Their argument mainly uses logical appeals, using a lot of statistics and evidence from scientific studies to make the case that the law actually helps save lives. For example, the article shows research that Connecticut’s purchase law reduced gun homicide rates by 28% (In Depth-Firearm). They also add that states like Missouri, which took away such laws, homicides and related deaths increased by 47% (In Depth-Firearm). They explain how states with this law in place experience fewer mass shootings and lower rates of guns being diverted for criminal use (In Depth-Firearm). The Center builds credibility not only through its status as a respected research institution, but also by presenting carefully documented, peer-reviewed data. Their message feels especially urgent right now, given the recent surge in high-profile shootings and political momentum for new gun laws, making their call for policy change timely and responsive to current public concerns. Their main focus is reaching lawmakers, advocates, and anyone weighing public safety policies, aiming to persuade with facts rather than personal stories (In Depth-Firearm). This logical, evidence based style works well for people who want solutions supported by research and real world results.
While both Bailey Duran and the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions present strong arguments, their approaches appeal to very different audiences and emotions. Duran’s use of personal stories and emotional language connects with readers who value freedom, family, and personal responsibility. Her argument depends heavily on pathos, drawing strength from her personal experiences and moral conviction about gun ownership as a basic right. This style makes her argument relatable and compelling for those who already support gun ownership. In contrast, the Johns Hopkins Center focuses on logos, using facts, statistics, and research to convince readers that stricter gun laws can save lives. Their professional tone and use of evidence give them credibility, especially among policymakers and people who trust data over emotion. While Duran’s approach may overlook the need for data to support broader policy changes, Johns Hopkins’ focus on numbers may fail to engage readers who are more influenced by personal stories and values. Together, these two perspectives show how both emotion and reason shape the gun control debate in America, one side led by personal freedom and protection, the other by research and public safety.
At its core, the gun control debate isn’t just about laws, it’s about how Americans view their freedom and safety, especially in response to national tragedies and urgent calls for change. Duran’s voice speaks to the people, with emotion and experience, while Johns Hopkins speaks to the mind, logical understanding, and credible evidence at a time when decisions feel more urgent than ever. However, no side can fully trump the other, because both are fighting for protection just in different forms. Until the nation learns to balance those two truths, the sound of this argument will continue to echo through every generation.
Work Cited
Duran, Bailey. “Opinion: Guns Save Lives and Should Not Be Taken Away.” Liberty Champion,
12 Apr. 2021, www.liberty.edu/champion/2021/04/12/opinion-guns-save-lives-and-should-not-be-taken-away/.
“In Depth-Firearm Purchaser Licensing.” Center for Gun Violence Solutions,
publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/solutions/firearm-purchaser-licensing/in-depth-on-permit-to-purchase? Accessed 26 Sept. 2025.
REFLECTION
Looking back on writing this rhetorical analysis, I found the process way more challenging than i thought and interesting than I expected. I already knew gun control was a heated debate in America, but digging into the rhetoric behind each argument made me see just how much tone, timing, and credibility matter. Trying to balance the facts without letting my own opinions slip in was honestly tough, especially since I do have strong feelings about the issue. I kept catching myself wanting to jump in and agree or disagree with the paper, and it took a real effort to focus on how the authors used ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos rather than sharing my own personal stance. One thing I learned was how the background and urgency of an issue change the way arguments can be seen. When I added context about mass shootings and new laws, it suddenly made each argument sound more relevant, like these pieces were speaking to what’s happening right now, not just in theory. Bouncing between Duran’s personal stories and the Johns Hopkins Center’s heavy data also opened my eyes to why certain arguments click with different people. Duran’s emotional language and family background seemed to speak directly to those who value tradition and personal responsibility, especially in anxious times. Meanwhile, the statistics and studies used by Johns Hopkins really appealed to people who trust science and want data to drive policy, especially when current events feel urgent. Taking feedback and making sure I actually addressed ethos and kairos for both authors helped me see the bigger picture. This assignment pushed me to analyze not just the message, but also the strategy and timing behind it. I realize now that the most effective arguments probably use more than just facts or emotion, they connect with readers by understanding the moment we’re in and building trust. Overall, this writing experience taught me a lot about writing for different audiences and gave me a better appreciation of how complicated debates really work, even when I try to leave my own opinions at the door. Would I do it again? NO, but it was fun reading about different opinions and contrasting them.
Duran, Bailey. “Opinion: Guns Save Lives and Should Not Be Taken Away.” Liberty Champion,
12 Apr. 2021, www.liberty.edu/champion/2021/04/12/opinion-guns-save-lives-and-should-not-be-taken-away/.
In this article, Bailey Duran argues that owning guns is a crucial right that protects people’s safety and freedom. She shares personal stories about her family, teaching her the importance of responsible gun ownership and how guns can empower individuals, especially women, to defend themselves. Duran points out statistics showing that many people successfully use guns for self defense each year, more than the number of gun related deaths, and implies gun control actually makes law abiding citizens less safe. She also connects the right to bear arms to the Constitution’s Second Amendment alaws fix some big gaps in federal background check rules and help stop guns from getting into the wrong hands. nd even uses Bible verses to back up her belief that protecting oneself is a God-given right. This article is helpful for understanding the pro-gun perspective, especially from a younger and faith-based viewpoint.
“In Depth-Firearm Purchaser Licensing.” Center for Gun Violence Solutions,
publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/solutions/firearm-purchaser-licensing/in-depth-on-permit-to-purchase? Accessed 26 Sept. 2025.
This article talks about what Firearm Purchaser Licensing laws are all about and why they matter when it comes to cutting down gun violence. Basically, these laws make people get a license before buying a gun, which includes background checks, fingerprinting, safety courses, and waiting periods. The research in this report shows that places with these laws have fewer gun related homicides, suicides, and even fewer shootings by police. It uses examples like Connecticut’s law leading to fewer deaths and Missouri’s repeal causing more gun violence. It also points out how these This source helped me really understand how strong gun licensing laws can actually make a difference in public safety.
Crifasi, Cassandra K, et al. “The Association between Permit-to-Purchase Laws and Shootings by Police.” Injury Epidemiology, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 29 June 2023, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10311703/.
This article talks about the impact of state gun laws, especially permit-to-purchase (PTP) requirements on shootings by police, using Gun Violence Archive data from 2015–2020. The research finding is that states with permit to purchase laws had a 28% lower rate of police shootings than states without them. Whereas, places with looser concealed carry laws saw higher rates. What I like about this paper is it goes beyond just fatalities, combining fatal and nonfatal shootings and pulling together other policy comparisons, like stand your ground and extreme risk protection orders (which didn’t show much impact). The way the authors controlled for demographic and crime variables makes the research feel pretty thorough. Their results add to an ongoing conversation, especially in public health and criminal justice about which policies actually save lives and reduce violence in police encounters. The findings connect with earlier work showing how PTP laws are effective, pushing the argument for more evidence based legislation to address gun violence.
“Raskin, Van Hollen Reintroduce Permit-to-Purchase Gun Safety Bill.” Congressman Jamie Raskin, 17 Jan. 2025, raskin.house.gov/2025/1/raskin-van-hollen-reintroduce-permit-to-purchase-gun-safety-bil
Raskin and Van Hollen’s reintroduced the Handgun Permit to Purchase Act which is all about getting states to adopt stronger permit to purchase laws for handguns, just like Maryland’s approach where buyers need a license from law enforcement before grabbing a handgun. What jumps out to me is the timing, especially with the Supreme Court letting Maryland’s licensing stay intact. Kind of a sign that these laws have a solid legal foundation that won’t fall apart overnight. The press release and research it cites both point out real world drops in gun violence when these laws are in place, like Maryland’s law helping police recover way fewer illegal handguns, or that 11% drop in firearm homicides in urban areas over decades. Framing it as “if you need a license to drive, why not for a handgun?” just makes sense to me. With advocates from Brady and March for Our Lives in the mix, this feels like public health and research teaming up to move the gun violence debate forward with results.
Most Gun-Friendly States in 2025, ammo.com/articles/most-gun-friendly-states. Accessed 31 Oct. 2025.
The article “Most Gun-Friendly States in 2025” kinds of celebrates states with strong support for legal gun ownership and relaxed regulations. It highlights New Hampshire, West Virginia, Arkansas, Montana, and South Dakota as the main examples due to their low restrictions on buying and carrying guns, stand your ground laws, and pro-Second Amendment governors. The article emphasizes that these states prioritize individual freedom and safety by reducing unnecessary rules and taxes on firearms and ammo. It views gun ownership as a fundamental right and a means of self-defense, portraying it as a positive and empowering choice. The tone is very upbeat and supportive of firearm culture, presenting legal gun ownership as beneficial for protecting oneself and one’s community. This article gave me a more clear perspective that embraces guns as valuable tools and promotes less restrictive laws as a way to uphold constitutional rights and personal security. The article also has graphs to show percentages of states with gun friendly laws.
Ayannia Gamble
Professor Ivey
English 211C
October 12, 2025
Abstract
Gun violence is a major public health problem in the United States, with thousands of deaths each year from homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings. This paper examines how permit-to-purchase (PTP) laws, which require buyers to obtain a license involving background checks and other screening steps before buying a firearm, affect gun-related homicide rates. Using public health research and policy reports, it compares states that adopted PTP laws, like Connecticut, with states that repealed them, like Missouri. The evidence shows that Connecticut saw a large drop in firearm homicides after adopting a PTP law, while Missouri experienced a significant rise in firearm homicides after the repeal. Although critics argue these laws burden law-abiding gun owners, the overall research suggests that permit-to-purchase systems can reduce gun deaths without banning firearms.
Keywords: Permit-to-purchase laws, Gun violence, Gun policy, Second Amendment debate
How Permit-to-Purchase Laws Shape Gun Violence in America
Gun violence remains the biggest concerning issue pressing public health concerns in the United States. Year, thousands of Americans lose their lives to guns, whether through homicide, suicide, or accidental shootings. While debates about the Second Amendment and individual gun rights dominate national discussions, growing evidence shows that certain gun policies, such as permit-to-purchase laws, significantly reduce gun related homicides. These laws require individuals to obtain a license or permit before buying a firearm, often involving background checks, fingerprinting, and safety training. This paper is going to explore how the presence of these laws affects gun-related homicide rates, drawing data from states like Connecticut and Missouri.
Permit-to-purchase laws are among the most comprehensive firearm purchase regulations
in the United States. Unlike instant background checks conducted at the point of sale, PTP laws require buyers to apply for a permit through local law enforcement or a state agency before purchasing a gun (In Depth-Firearm). This process can include an in-depth background investigation, safety courses, and waiting periods. According to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, permit-to-purchase systems are designed to create an additional layer of screening that helps prevent guns from reaching individuals who pose a threat to others. By requiring direct interaction with law enforcement and verifying an applicant’s eligibility before the point of purchase, these laws make it more difficult for people with violent criminal records or histories of domestic abuse to acquire firearms. The effectiveness of such laws can be seen through empirical evidence comparing states that have implemented them versus those that have repealed them. For example, studies on Connecticut and Missouri show major changes in firearm homicide rates after these laws were adopted or repealed.
Connecticut and Missouri provide two strikingly different examples of how permit-to-purchase laws influence gun homicide rates. In Connecticut, a permit-to-purchase law was enacted in 1995, requiring prospective handgun buyers to pass a background check, provide fingerprints, and obtain a permit from local authorities. Research conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that following the law’s implementation, the state’s firearm homicide rate dropped by approximately 40 percent. These declines were sustained over time, suggesting that the policy had a long-term preventive impact. In contrast, Missouri experienced the opposite effect when it repealed its longstanding permit-to-purchase requirement in 2007. A study by Webster et al. found that after the repeal, Missouri’s firearm homicide rate increased by nearly 25 percent, while firearm suicide rates also rose. Importantly, this increase occurred independently of national crime trends, indicating that the repeal itself likely contributed to the surge in gun deaths (In Depth-Firearm). The Missouri case highlights how removing background check barriers can make it easier for guns to circulate among high-risk individuals, fueling higher rates of violence.
Public health experts widely support permit-to-purchase laws as a crucial safeguard for preventing gun violence. Dr. Cassandra Crifasi and her colleagues found that states with PTP laws not only experience fewer firearm-related homicides but also fewer shootings involving law enforcement. Their research suggests that by reducing the number of illegal or high-risk firearm transfers, PTP laws can reduce situations that escalate into lethal encounters (Crifasi). Lawmakers have also recognized the potential benefits of adopting these laws at the federal level (Raskin). In early 2025, Representatives Jamie Raskin and Chris Van Hollen reintroduced the Permit-to-Purchase Gun Safety Bill, aiming to establish stronger standards nationwide. The bill emphasizes the need for consistent background checks and licensing procedures across states, arguing that uneven state laws create loopholes that allow guns to flow from states with weaker policies into those with stricter ones. For example, neighboring states without PTP laws often become sources of illegally trafficked firearms that contribute to crime in states with tighter regulations.
Despite the evidence supporting permit-to-purchase laws, not everyone agrees that they are the most effective approach. People argue that such regulations infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms and place undue burdens on law-abiding citizens. Bailey Duran, in a 2021 Liberty Champion opinion piece, argues that “guns save lives” and that restricting access punishes responsible gun owners rather than criminals. People of this view claim that education, mental health awareness, and community engagement, rather than stricter laws, should be the primary solutions to reducing violence. Some gun rights advocates further contend that criminals rarely obtain their firearms through legal channels, meaning that additional licensing only impacts citizens who already follow the law. They argue that enforcing existing laws more rigorously, rather than creating new ones, would be more effective in reducing gun violence. This perspective shows an important tension in the debate, where the balance between securing public safety and protecting individual freedoms. The challenge lies in finding a balance between constitutional rights and the need to prevent needless deaths. Permit-to-purchase laws do not ban guns outright but strive to ensure that those who possess them are responsible and stable individuals.
The issue of gun related homicides is more than an academic interest for many people. For those who have lost loved ones to gun violence, the debate carries a profound emotional weight. The tragedy of losing a cousin, friend, or family member to a shooting underscores the real human cost behind these statistics. When the shooter is someone who never should have had access to a firearm, it becomes clear why reform matters. Policies like permit-to-purchase laws have the potential to save other families from similar losses, reinforcing that gun violence prevention is not a partisan issue, but a matter of public health, safety, and compassion.
Permit-to-purchase laws represent one of the most effective, evidence based tools available to reduce firearm homicides in the United States. The contrasting experiences of Connecticut and Missouri clearly shows their impact, when such laws are implemented, gun deaths fall, whereas when they are repealed, gun deaths rise. Although concerns about individual rights remain valid and should be part of the conversation, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that these laws save lives without banning guns, which suggests that states without these laws should re-examine their policies if they want to reduce gun-related homicides. By approaching gun ownership with the same seriousness as other licensed responsibilities, the United States can reduce its epidemic of firearm homicides while respecting constitutional freedoms.
Work Cited
Crifasi, Cassandra K, et al. “The Association between Permit-to-Purchase Laws and Shootings by Police.” Injury Epidemiology, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 29 June 2023, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10311703/.
Duran, Bailey. “Opinion: Guns Save Lives and Should Not Be Taken Away.” Liberty Champion,
12 Apr. 2021, www.liberty.edu/champion/2021/04/12/opinion-guns-save-lives-and-should-not-be-taken-away/.
“In Depth-Firearm Purchaser Licensing.” Center for Gun Violence Solutions,
publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/solutions/firearm-purchaser-licensing/in-depth-on-permit-to-purchase? Accessed 26 Sept. 2025.
“Raskin, Van Hollen Reintroduce Permit-to-Purchase Gun Safety Bill.” Congressman Jamie Raskin, 17 Jan. 2025, raskin.house.gov/2025/1/raskin-van-hollen-reintroduce-permit-to-purchase-gun-safety-bil
Reflection
Doing this research project on permit-to-purchase gun laws was harder than I expected, mainly because of the sources. At first, when I searched for information about gun laws, I got a lot of general results about “gun control” or broad debates over the Second Amendment instead of specific studies on permit-to-purchase policies. I had to keep changing my keywords and narrowing my search just to find articles that actually looked at licensing laws and homicide rates instead of just giving opinions. It was also confusing sorting out which sources were scholarly studies with real data and which were opinion pieces or advocacy sites. The conference helped a bit because it pushed me to think more about what kind of evidence my professor was looking for, and it made me realize I needed to clearly connect claims to data, not just say “research shows” without proof. Talking through my draft made it clear where I was being too vague, like when I mentioned “empirical evidence” but didn’t immediately point to the Connecticut and Missouri studies. After that, I went back and focused on finding research that directly measured changes in gun-related homicides in states with and without permit-to-purchase laws. One of the biggest challenges was balancing sources that agreed with my argument and those that didn’t. Most of the academic research I found supported permit-to-purchase laws, but I also needed a strong pro-gun, oppositional source to show the other side of the debate. That meant trying to find beyond scholarly databases and looking at opinion articles like Bailey Duran’s piece, then figuring out how to use it without letting it replace data-driven evidence. Overall, this project made me work a lot harder at source evaluation: checking who wrote the article, what kind of evidence they used, and how directly it answered my research question. Even though it was frustrating at times, it helped me understand how much careful searching it takes to build a solid, well-supported argument on a controversial topic like gun policy.
