edit this for 10 points?

Moore is far too subjective in his argument that the government's irresponsibility in taking care of the poor has resulted in this tragedy. He blames the U.S. government’s shoddy welfare system for causing all gun-related deaths in America. Moore lacks an objective viewpoint and cannot comprehend the possibility that gun violence may not necessarily stem from the government's lack of responsibility. In a web article, author James Berardinelli refutes Moore's claim that a six-year-old girl's death should be blamed on the World for Welfare program (*Is that program name right?*). Berardinelli makes the point that if we were to "follow [Moore's] convoluted logic, it makes a certain kind of sense, but he’s stretching things. A more likely culprit is the uncle who didn’t keep his gun safely locked away from the youngster who brought it to school and fired it. Strangely, Moore never addresses the issue of gun responsibility and safety" (Berardinelli). Moore's tactic of blaming welfare programs is entirely unfair to the government. It is the astounding lack of gun responsibility and safety which leads to tragedies and accidents. If the said six-year-old boy’s uncle had kept the gun in a safe place where children cannot access it, the possibility of bringing the gun to school would have been eliminated. Thus, the blame cannot and should not be traced back to the welfare programs, but instead to the immediate gun owner's responsibility. Audiences need to be vigilant in order to avoid being lured into Moore’s convincing arguments, built by his subjective point of view. To truly assess the ramifications and causes of gun violence, we must look at the situation from all perspectives to conclude whether or not Moore's argument is, in fact, justifiable.