I have attached example as well.

You will first write your literature review; then, you will write your introduction. Please see “Lesson 4: The Introduction” for details on why it is suggested that you begin the drafting process with the literature review instead of the introduction. The following details are requirements of the assignment:

• Introduction (9-12 well-developed sentences/approximately 350 words): For more details about      what is expected for each of the following sentences, please see “Lesson 4: The Introduction.” You may also want to review the “Example Introduction and Literature Review (with comments).”  The following components must be included in the introduction (in the following order).

  Sentence 1: Introduce the general topic
  Sentence 2: Pro side(general)
  Sentence 3: Con side (general)
  Sentence 4: Narrow the scope (1)
  Sentence 5: Examples of the narrowed topic
  Sentence 6: Narrow the scope (2)
  Sentence 7: Specific controversy
  Sentence 8: Pro side (specific)
  Sentence 9: Con side (specific)
  Sentence 10: The thesis

• Literature Review (800-900 words): For details about the structure of the literature review, you will want to review “Lesson 3: The Literature Review: The Process.” You may also want to review the “Example Introduction and Literature Review (with comments).” The link is below.

  Literature review preface: This paragraph acts as a guide to what the reader can expect in the literature review.
  Literature review body: This section includes three to four body paragraphs that discuss the history, terminology, and both sides of the controversy (pro and con).
  Literature review conclusion: The conclusion signals that the literature review is ending, but it also acts as a kind of preface for the body of the paper by restating the thesis statement and establishing your argument once again.

• Demonstrate how to summarize and paraphrase source materials.
• Demonstrate the avoidance of plagiarism through proper use of APA citations and references      for all paraphrased and quoted material.

Unit IV Color Key:

 Blue: APA document formatting

 Red: Example common mistakes in APA style

 Brown: Paragraph number and label

 Green: Sentence-level number and explanation

Running head: SAFETY FIRST 1

Safety First: Open Carry Firearms on Higher Education Campuses in Arizona

Student Name

University

APA header: Note that the title is in capital letters and prefaced by the words “Running head.” The page number is also included.

Full title of the paper with the major words beginning with a capital letter

The student’s first and last name

Name of the institution, which will always be “University”

SAFETY FIRST 2

Safety First: Open Carry Firearms on Higher Education Campuses in Arizona

Much has been made in the past few years about gun restrictions in the U.S. Proponents

of gun regulation are in a constant state of lobbying for state and federal bills that restrict access

to firearms, whether that takes the form of more extensive background checks on potential gun

owners or longer waiting periods before guns may be sold to individuals. On the other side,

the

National Rifle Association (NRA) and other like-minded individuals advocate for looser

restrictions on the sale and carrying of firearms. For these supporters of pro-gun legislation,

owning and carrying guns is a fundamental right—even a civil right. While this national debate

continues to loom over the hot topic of guns, there are breaking news stories, especially within

the last few months, that bring this fundamental debate to the threshold of our nations colleges,

high schools, even elementary schools. Seung-Hui Cho’s massacre at Virginia Tech (April 16,

2007) is perhaps one of the more infamous school shootings, but there are others that are perhaps

more difficult to remember, like the deaths of 27 killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in

Newton, Connecticut (December 14, 2012) (CNN, 2015). Shootings like these in educational

settings have drawn attention from both anti-gun proponents and pro-gun lobbyists, and the State

of Arizona is no exception to this firestorm. The Arizona State legislature has proposed SB 1474,

a gun bill that will allow students and faculty to carry guns on the campus grounds of its three

state-funded universities. Supporters of the bill claim that Arizona is an open carry state, and

those rights should not be restricted simply because the carrier crosses the border of a college

campus. Those against the bill assert that guns have no place in education and that those who

support the bill are only after their own election-year agendas. While the Second Amendment

should be upheld, the educational learning environment should be protected;

Full title presented again at the top of the page

Para 1: Introduction

Sentence 1 (S1): Amanda introduces the main topic (gun control) in a generalized manner; this sentence also introduces the con side of the controversy

S2 &3: Follows S1 by introducing the position of the pro side; again, Amanda is general, focusing on the larger controversy

S4: Amanda begins to narrow the scope of the project by pointing towards a specific debate within the larger controversy of gun control: gun control in educational settings.

S5: Specific examples from the news. Note that these are examples of school shootings with which most people are familiar. This grounds the project to what is at stake in making arguments about this topic.

S6: Amanda again narrows the scope of the project by moving from gun control in educational settings to this debate as it takes place in a specific location: Arizona.

S7: In this sentence, the writer introduces the specific topic of the project: the controversy around

SB1474.

S8 & 9: Following the same order from above (con first, then pro), Amanda presents the sides of the controversy by introducing each specific position.

S10: Amanda presents her thesis statement. She responds to the controversy by crafting a thesis statement that simultaneously agrees and disagrees.

Jason.Davis
Line

SAFETY FIRST 3

therefore, SB 1474 is a detrimental and dangerous bill that has the potential to change the

university campus culture in Arizona state universities.

The Literature Review

In order to better understanding the origins of SB1474 and the controversy that surrounds

it, the history of gun violence in school settings must be taken into account; therefore, a brief

look at some of the events of the past few decades is presented. Further, this review will examine

in greater detail the positions of the two sides of the controversy, beginning with the pro-SB1474

side, which is in favor of allowing open carry on all Arizona state-funded campuses. Then the

position of those against SB1474 will be presented; again, this con side is arguing for Arizona

campuses to remain as they are now: a place without firearms.

A Brief Look at Gun Violence in Schools

The topic of gun control in educational environments exploded in 1999 when Eric Harris

and Dylan Klebold walked into a virtually unknown high school in Littleton, CO, and killed

twelve students and one teacher (Gibbs and Roche, 1999). Questions of how such events could

occur and concerns about the violence of which teens and young adults are capable became the

concern of pressured administrators and horrified parents in big cities and small towns alike. A

string of school gun-centered violence followed over the next few years. Perhaps most striking

though was the way in which this one incident changed the culture of America: clear backpacks,

more metal detectors, and (of course) fear. Cloud (1999) points out some of the extreme, “zero

tolerance” actions taken by schools shortly following the Columbine shootings:

A seven-year-old boy in Cahokia, Ill., is suspended for having a nail clipper at school. A

10th-grader at Surry County High School in Virginia is booted for having blue-dyed hair.

Shortened version of the title in the header and the page number on each page

Para 2: Preface of the Literature Review

Para 3: Brief History

First-level heading: All major sections of the paper will be first-level, including The Literature Review, Body, and Conclusion. You may choose to mark the Introduction, but it is typically not done because the title of the paper stands for the heading level. Note that the title is centered and bold with sentence-case capitalization.

Note how Amanda prefaces the LR by giving the reader an idea of what will be included. You might also note that the paragraph is written in passive voice so that she can avoid using personal pronouns such as “I.”

This is a second-level heading. It is left-hand justified and bold. All major words are capitalized. This tells the reader that this next section is a division of the first-level heading that is directly above.

This citation is in APA. It shows the authors and year of publication. This sentence is a paraphrase of Gibbs and Roche. The reader can look at the references page to find the original document.

Amanda has made a mistake: Only the ampersand (&) should be used in a parenthetical citation.

Here is another way to include a parenthetical citation. Amanda has incorporated the author’s name into the sentence. Note that the year of publication is presented after the author, but there is no citation at the end of the sentence because the information is already presented at the beginning.

This quotation is called a “block.” If a quotation is over 40 words long, then you must “block” it by removing the quotation marks and indenting the entire quotation 1/2” from the left-hand margin. If this quotation would have been from a print text, then the page number would have been included at the end of the sentence, but it was an electronic source.

Elizabeth.MacWhinnie
Typewritten Text

Elizabeth.MacWhinnie
Typewritten Text

Elizabeth.MacWhinnie
Typewritten Text

Elizabeth.MacWhinnie
Typewritten Text

SAFETY FIRST 4

A Minnesota high school nixes a yearbook photo of an Army enlistee in the senior class

because it shows her sitting atop a cannon outside a Veterans of Foreign Wars post.

Far from the exception, these actions considered these many years later seem unreasonable, even

in a post-9/11 world filled with uncertainty.

The Argument for Open Carry Everywhere in Arizona

However, in Arizona, the newly proposed SB 1474 would not seek to disarm students; on

the contrary, the bill would allow students the right to concealed carry on state-funded university

campuses. Proponents of the bill assert that such a measure is long over due. According to an

NRA poster that were taped to message boards all over The University of Arizona campus,

“[s]elf-defense is one of the most fundamental rights of every human being.” Further, the poster

states that the NRA has worked diligently over the past 25 years to expand the right of open

carry: the NRA has been “working for passage of fair Right-to-Carry laws, expansion of carry

reciprocity between the states and the elimination of many ‘no-carry’ zones that only affect the

law-abiding.” For the NRA, one of the major private-public backers of the SB 1474, the

restriction of concealed carry on college campuses is an infringement on these basic rights. The

flyer goes on to state the following:

Those who oppose campus carry [of firearms] argue that educational institutions should

be treated differently, based on emotional claims that places of higher learning are

somehow exempt from real-world violence. But the truth is, despite current prohibitions

on legally carrying on campuses, crimes already occur on campus, and the right to self-

defense from those violent acts should be respected. (NRA, 2012)

The NRA is correct. In fact, given the number of school-related shootings in the past few months

alone, it would seem that a student’s chances of being shot on campus seem greater than if that

Para 4: Pro side

There are three second-level headings in the LR. Headings help you and the reader to see the organization of your paper.

Amanda presents a closer look at the pro side before the con side. Note that she is not engaging with the arguments, only presenting them as fairly as she can. The LR is about the arguments of others. Amanda knows she will be able to make her own arguments in the Body of the paper.

SAFETY FIRST 5

same student were walking the streets of the community. From larger cities to small towns, it

seems that the size of the community does not matter: the violence of a shooting can occur

anyw

here.

However, even with this fact floating in the backs of students’ minds, students

must

still attend classes and while it would seem obvious that lawmakers on both sides want student

safety, they just see the means to that safety from different sides of the same coin.

The Case for Campuses as Unique

Eugene Sander (2012), the Interim President of the University of Arizona, released the

following statement about SB 1474: “I have been a gun owner for all my adult life, and am fully

supportive of the right to own a gun. However, having faculty, staff or students bringing

weapons into classrooms and other campus activities will do nothing to make our campus safer.”

While Sander does not go into detail about what this newly proposed bill does have to do with,

he makes his case on the basis that 50,000 students, staff, and faculty attend the campus daily,

along with over 20,000 visitors annually. For Sander (2015), the educational environment is a

“unique atmosphere that is dependent on open and vigorous debate. Introducing guns into

classrooms would dramatically and negatively impact the ability to engage in constructive

dialogue.” In other words, even if the NRA does not believe that the university is a unique

atmosphere, as Sander and others do, then there is still a possibility that introducing the right to

carry concealed weapons on campus might lead to a change to the very culture of the university.

While Arizona lawmakers continue to debate the merits of SB1474, the public debate

grows, as this issue concerns both public safety and citizens’ rights. Because the three state

universities in Arizona are publically funded, the debate about allowing open carry is very much

a concern held by the communities in which these universities reside. Those who are in favor of

the change to an open carry status on university campuses wish (a) for the open carry laws of the

Para 5: Con side

This citation is correct. Amanda did not have to include the

author’s first name, but it is fine to do so the first time that

the author’s name is mentioned.

Amanda

has

made a

mistake.

Each time

an author is

included,

the year of

publication

must

follow. So

this should

read as

follows:

“While

Sander

(2012)…”

Amanda
has made a
mistake.

The actual

year of the

publication

is 2012. Be

careful

about

editing for

errors like

this in your

own paper.

Para 6: LR

Conclusion

S1&2:

Amanda

creates a topic

sentence that

encapsulates

the concern of

the

controversy,

and she

includes a

second

sentence to

increase

understanding.

S3: Amanda

summarizes

the two main

arguments of

the pro side,

which favors

the

passing of

SB1474.

SAFETY FIRST 6

State of Arizona to be extended to all areas, which includes all publically funding institutions,

such as the universities, and (b) for the open carry of firearms to act as a deterrent to gun-related

violence on college campuses. For those who are against the passing of SB1474, many of whom

occupy the space of the university as professors, students, or administrators, the question of

allowing the open carry of firearms is no actual question at all: there is simply no need to involve

weapons in a space that is meant for open dialogue and debate. In as much as the Second

Amendment should be observed and upheld in the fashion adopted by the State of Arizona in the

form of open carry, the university setting is unique in that concerns about open and free

expression should be at the forefront—essentially making this bill a potentially dangerous one

that should be reconsidered or withdrawn completely.

S4: Amanda

summarizes

the main

argument of

the con side,

those who are

against the

passing of
SB1474.

S5: Amanda

reiterates her

own position

by reasserting

her

thesis

statement.

Note that the

thesis

statement is

slightly

different than

the original at

the end of the

Introduction

paragraph.

SAFETY FIRST 7

References

CNN Library. (2015, October 19). 28 deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history fast facts. CNN.

Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-

history-fast-facts/

Cloud, J. (1999). The Columbine effect. Time. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/

magazine/article/0,9171,35098,00.html

Gibbs, N. & Roche, T. (1999). The Columbine tapes. Time. Retrieved from

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992873,00.html

National Rifle Association. (2012). Arizona self-Defense on campus [Flyer]. NRA: Author.

Sander, Eugene. (2012, March 20). UA President opposes campus guns bill. KGUN-TV.

Retrieved from http://www.kgun9.com

An APA list of references should be

labeled “References,” NOT “Works

Cited” or “Bibliography.”

The last

name is

presented

first; then the

first name

and middle

(if present) is

included as

initials. An

ampersand

(&) is used

for more

than one

author. Last

names are

always

presented

first.

Proper nouns

always begin

with a capital

letter.

Amanda has

made a

mistake. This

capital letter

“D” should not

be capitalized.

Titles in APA are presented in sentence-case

capitalization, meaning that only the first

word or any proper noun should begin with a

capital letter.

Amanda has
made a

mistake by

including the

full name of

the author

here.

• Untitled