Jonathan Lowery Anthony Borrero 3/24/2013 ENGL 1102-029 Veterans make up a significant percentage of the population today.

You probably know at least one person who has served in the military to protect this country overseas, maybe even good friends with one. You also have probably heard about the recent gun violence epidemic across the nation, from Aurora, Colorado, to Sandy Hook Elementary, and the push for tighter gun control laws or even an outright ban on some kinds of rifles. There are now rumors now that the government also wants to put even more laws on both active duty and retired military personnel who own guns, saying that they are a threat to themselves with them and taking them away will save their lives. I do not believe that this is the right course of action, as I dont believe that you can tell someone who has held a rifle to protect this country in hostile, foreign lands that they cannot have guns here in America. This article starts out by talking about an Israeli policy change where troops were not allowed to take their weapons home, and it lowered the suicide rate among 18-21 year olds 40 percent. First of all, American soldiers have not been allowed to take their weapons home /anyway, and secondly, where are the stats on the 18-21 year old soldiers in America? It seems /like Perry Stein, the author of the article, just threw this stat in for an emotional response among the readers. Stein also gives the statistic that the suicide rate is higher in states where gun ownership is more prevalent. He says this, but then gives no indication which states, where in the country, how much higher the rate is, no other information about how or why the rate is

higher, just that it is. He then throws in a fact that more than half of the 32, 439 suicides in 2004 were with guns, but dont you think that statistic is a little outdated? Stein then decided to start attacking pro-gun companies and political action committees (PACs) like the National Rifle Association and the Freedom Group, who own major gun manufacturers like Remington and Bushmaster. He says that they are targeting active duty or retired military personnel because of their familiarity with the weapons they produce from their service. He says they make assault weapons designed for the battlefield and sell them to civilians and potentially dangerous and deranged veterans who are potentially harmful to themselves or others (Stein 2013). In response to this statement, the definition of assault weapon in the dictionary is any of various automatic or semi-automatic firearms which could include any kind of handgun or even things like a crossbow. Also, the AR-15 is a completely legal firearm to own as it is the civilian version of the M-16. This article is basically criticizing pro-2nd amendment companies because of what they believe and what they are selling. Stein thinks that one of the reasons these veterans are killing themselves is because of the guns, and that is just not a reason at all. Veterans are killing themselves because of what they did while they were on active duty or if they had a traumatic experience, neither of which did he bring up during the article at all. This article shows me one big thing about the veteran suicide epidemic: that we dont understand it, but yet there are still people who think they know what is happening. We need to know more about this subject before we try to diagnose the problem, and I think that this gun control is jumping to conclusions more than anything right now.

1. Intro a. I do not believe that keeping firearms out of current and former military service members is the best course of action to lowering the suicide rate among them. 2. Studies a. Article starts with Israeli study where not letting service members take home guns made suicide rate drop 40 percent in 18-21 range b. American service members not allowed to take weapons home anyway c. Gives no stats on American 18-21 year olds d. Give study that says suicide rate is higher in states where gun ownership more common, and more than half of suicides are with guns 3. Attacking pro-gun companies and PACs a. Attacking gun companies for marketing to active or retired service members i. The gun owning community is shrinking, and they are trying to stay relevant and alive as companies b. Stein talks about assault weapons designed for the battlefield i. Assault weapons defined in Merriam-Webster as any of various automatic or semi-automatic firearms which could include pistols or even things like crossbows into that definition ii. AR-15, what people typically think about when talking about assault weapons is the civilian version of the M-16, also it is very hard to acquire military ammo as a civilian c. Says NRA is targeting market for assault weapons i. Not all veterans out to get assault rifles just because they had one before ii. Targeting an audience that is typically pro-2nd amendment, not just because they are military iii. Government isnt even allowed to talk to veterans about the dangers of gun ownership under a provision of the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act 4. Conclusion a. This article is basically criticizing pro-2nd amendment companies because of what they believe and are selling to the public. Stein thinks that guns are the reason veterans are killing themselves, and sorry to seem morbid here, but while sometimes they may be the mode, it is not at all the reason.

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/111720/guns-military-suicide-nra http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/new-report-military-losing-the-battle-againstsuicide/ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20weapon