Nicholas Kristof Essay 2011 Master Thesis Poverty
With the top applicants from every high school applying to the best schools in the country, it's important to have an edge in your college application.In our 2019 edition, check out ten of our newest Harvard application essays and profiles from students who made it in.Kristof first purports to answer the “argument” (it would be helpful, by the way, if he included a link to serious people making the arguments he’s purportedly rebutting) that cars are more likely to kill a person than guns, but we don’t try to ban cars.Here’s the core of Kristof’s response: We don’t ban cars, but we do work hard to take a dangerous product and regulate it to limit the damage.First, Kristof fails to note that we do, in fact, already work to keep guns out of dangerous hands.
There’s work left to be done — just as there is work left to be done on automobile fatalities — but in any other context improvements like this would be cause for celebration. Perhaps because it coincided with a generation-long easing of restrictions on gun ownership. But the argument against these laws isn’t that they’re unconstitutional; it’s that they’re unenforceable and ineffective.
As the world seeks to solve its most difficult problems, it faces conflicting visions: one where humanity is limited only by its potential, and one where it is limited by what some technocrats think that the potential will be.
Seven billion people have a rendezvous with destiny, and to place a ceiling on what that destiny could be is to fight blindly against a history of staggering human achievement and advancement.
Having lost to two straw men, Kristof proceeds to make a puzzling argument about suicides.
He addresses the claim that suicides “are not about guns” like this: Actually, that’s not true.