English 5: Peer Post Responses Analysis - Argumentative Essays, Week 4

This assignment comprises two peer post responses analyzing two argumentative essays: "Our Blind Spot about Guns" by Nicholas Kristof and "Don't Make English Official- Ban it Instead" by Dennis Baron. The first peer post highlights the contrasting tones and arguments of the essays, favoring Kristof's use of logic and evidence, particularly his comparison of gun-related deaths to automobile fatalities. The second peer post also evaluates the essays, emphasizing Kristof's arguments for gun safety and suggesting the effectiveness of technological solutions like fingerprint-activated triggers. Both posts demonstrate an understanding of the authors' arguments and provide insightful analysis, supported by cited passages and references to the course readings. The assignment fulfills the requirements of a Week 4 discussion, including the analysis of argumentative essays, the comparison of persuasive techniques, and peer review with thoughtful questions and observations.

Running head: ENGLISH
Peer Post Responses
Name of the Student:
Name of University:
Author Note

2
ENGLISH
Peer Post One:
In the first peer post, the student contrasts the two essays concerning two very different
topic in a very precise manner. It has been pointed out very correctly that the essay “Our Blind
Post about Guns” employs a direct tone in addressing the issue of Gun Violence whereas. On the
other hand, in the essay “Don’t Make English Official- Ban it Instead”, the author has chosen to
employ a sarcastic approach to assert his point.
The post highlights the effectiveness of the essays and has been asserted that Nicholas
Kristof’s essay is more compelling as he has made use of logic and evidences to prove his point,
such as statistics of the death caused by Gun Violence and misuse of the same by comparing it
with misconduct of drivers and seizure of cars and licenses. It has been argued that Kristof’s
point to reduce gun violence with the help of regulatory measures. The points which have been
raised in the post are pertinent and have been justified with examples.
Peer Post Two:
The post talks about the two essays and their arguments even though, the essay “Don’t
Make English Official- Ban it Instead” has not been discussed while paying great attention to the
arguments which have been placed by the author, in the essay, in a sarcastic manner, expecting a
paradoxical outcome out of a rigid step, such as a ban. Dennis’s intention is not to propose a ban
anticipating withdrawal of the language English, but expecting a rapid opposite reaction, by
embracing English as a language for communication as people tend to do the things, which are
not expected to do.
On the contrary, the post intends to put emphasis on the fact that the essay “Our Blind
Spot about Guns” is more effective as the author points out important points about safety by

3
ENGLISH
making advances in security levels and eligibility to use a Gun. It has been correctly pointed out
in the post that the author has raised some very pertinent points which are useful in order to
regulate gun violence.

4
ENGLISH
Appendix
Peer Post 1:
Kristof, N. '' Our Blind Spot about Guns'' and Baron, D. ''Dont Make English Official -
Ban it Instead'' differ in the way that Kristof suggest taking a direct approach, implementing
new requirements and ideas to regulate gun use as well as who is allowed to purchase them.
Meanwhile Baron, D. proposes to ban English , hoping that this would have a paradoxical effect
on people , iintriguing them to the language, and leading to the adoption of English as the prime
language of the United States.
To me, Nicholas Kristof approach in his essay about gun regulations is more effective.
Kristof uses logical evidence when comparing gun related death stats to those of automobile
related deaths. He explains how implementing change and adding regulations to drivers, such as
a drivers licence being required, have helped dropped the death rates drastically over the years.
He calculated that in 1921 there would have been 715,000 annual Americans dying due to
automobile accidents. ''Instead, we've reduced the fatality rate by more than 95 percent not by
confiscating cars, but by regulating them and their drivers sensibly''. (Kristof p.162) This
example demonstrates how the regularization pertaining to Autos and their conductors had
lowered the risk , and death rates. This proves that the issue are not the objects in question
( guns or autos) instead the problem are the people who are allowed to operate them who lacked
better judgment.
Kristof, N. '' Our Blind Spot about Guns'' ( PP. 162-165), Baron, D. '' Don't Make English
Official- Ban it Instead'' (PP.949-952) ; Bullock, R. and Goggin, M.D The Norton Field Guide
To Writing With Readings ( fifth edition).

5
ENGLISH
Peer Post 2
The two essays have some great arguments however they are in fact very different one is
about why guns are dangerous and we need more safety for them and the other essays talks about
why we should ban English. The essay that talks about banning English doesn't i feel like hold
enough strong evidence behind it to be the most effective. Dennis talks about how he feels like
the english language is going to disappear so why not just ban it now. However the essay "Our
Blind Spot about Guns" By , ( Nicholas Kristof ) Holds good strong evidence Nicholas
writes “We didn’t ban cars, or send black helicopters to confiscate them,” notes Waldman. “We
made cars safer: air bags, seatbelts, increasing the drinking age, lowering the speed limit. There
are similar technological and behavioral fixes that can ease the toll of gun violence, from
expanded background checks to trigger locks to smart guns that recognize a thumbprint, just like
my iPhone does.” I feel like this works because he has a really good point and i feel as though
his idea with the thumbprint for the trigger could actually work. With that being said the
thumbprint idea could reduce the use of the gun from anyone else besides the actual gun owner.
Nicolas makes a lot of great points in his paper on gun safety.