Just wondering if you critique this. Its a powerpoint and speech.
Sure! I've popped it in the spoiler for reference, but my comments are below it
Spoiler
Legal Responses to the issue - After an 18-hour stand-off, Bryant was finally captured the next day, where a judge labelled him as a “pathetic social misfit”, who did leave the premises until 7:48 am the next morning. Bryant was taken to the Royal Hobart hospital where Beswick (Police Minister) and Rundle (Premier) discussed the change in gun laws but the next scheduled meeting was in July. However, Beswick insisted that it was an urgent issue and this appointed it to take place on the 10th of May. Bryant was sentenced in respect of: murder of less than 35 persons, attempted murder, infliction of grievous bodily harm and infliction of further wounds. Additionally, Bryant was sentenced to: four counts of aggravated assault, one count of setting fire to property and arson. Martin Bryant serves 35 life terms, and a 1,035 year cumulative sentence.
Law reform and greater gun control was the sole priority of Howard. Having been in six weeks sworn in as Prime Minster, he did not have the sovereignty to implement change. Under the constitution, it outlines that the Federal Government does not have the authority to pass laws pertaining weapons, so it required bi-partisanship of states. Qld, WA, and even Tas were hesitant despite the Port Arthur massacre, however Howard ventured throughout the country for need of gun reform.
Though the hardships that the government endured, the federal government managed to attain nationwide gun reform. In May 1996, the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) was accepted where 640,000 guns were seized and destroyed.
- First sentence, should be
didn't leave the premises I think?
- Information on the meetings about the gun laws is irrelevant
- Good information on the sentence applied
- Again, the lead up information to the NFA is irrelevant. Only that last sentence is important.
This is good information, but yeah, there is lots of stuff that doesn't need to be there. Focus just on the laws, the cases, the sentences: The hard facts. The background information is not relevant to the point you are making
I'd also wager that, as part of this powerpoint, you could be being asked to
evaluate effectiveness of the Legal responses in some regard? If so, be sure to pop some evaluation in there: "Effective because ______", "Ineffective because _______," make your judgement!
All that said, great work! You've just got a bunch of stuff you can trim