The author, Megan Weintraut opens her argument with the second amendment, which states that people have a right to keep and bear arms. In her article, Weintraut argues that guns are unnecessary, and only lead to social problems namely violence.
Overall the author favors both logos and pathos more than she does ethos. Within here article she presents evidence and then either explains the emotional impact, or creates a situation where the reader would agree with her based on their moral standpoint, as we can see within the second paragraph. However sometimes these arguments fall flat, and do not have the same punch that they would if she reasoned her arguments more thoroughly, or made more specific and grounded claims.
In her second paragraph she first appeals to logos, by providing a statistic, and then pathos, by drawing an emotional conclusion from the statistic. She states that many Americans do not need to hunt to survive, and therefore do not need guns as a part of their lifestyle, “For sustenance, we have companies that raise and kill animals for mass food production. Guns have become decreasingly essential for personal survival.” This is not the strongest claim she could have made, because she is not precise enough as to who does not need guns to supply them with food. There is a distinct lack of need within a city to own a hunting gun, however once outside the city; there are many people who rely upon hunting to supplement their meals. I know a few families myself that without hunting their own food, would not survive economically.
Her next point appeals to both logos and ethos, she writes that, “The National Institute of Justice reported that in 2006 alone, firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders, and more than 90 percent of today’s gang-related homicides involve guns.” This aids to lend a sense of credibility to the writer’s argument, as well as appealing to the audience’s desire to have cold, hard numbers. The one part that detracts from her strong point is a very unclear phase; “the “sensible” argument would be to eliminate gun violence by providing more guns to the public.” This seems completely unclear, as well as undermining her argument. I
The next paragraph appeals solely to pathos, and does not make a very clear, or strong point. She talks about how Grand Theft Auto negatively influences youth, and desensitizes people to the realities of guns. There is no appeal to either logos, or ethos, and she uses nothing else besides her opinions. For this reason her argument here falls flat, and doesn’t have as much impact as it would if she included some sort of evidence backing up her claim.
Her fifth paragraph is possibly one of her strongest, and most successful paragraphs, she first applies to logos, and then to pathos, as she has done in several other paragraphs, however this usage is much more effective. She begins by describing different state’s legislation surrounding the sale of guns to civilians, and points out just how lenient most states are to the sale of guns. She also points out that only 4 states restrict the number of guns one can buy within a 30 day period, and that once a person is 21 years of age, he/she can buy a very large range of different types of guns, as well as ammunition. After she makes these points she goes on to describe how they affect us, and uses emotion to great effect, she describes how Jared Loughner used a high-capacity magazine in the recent Arizona shooting. This is quite a powerful emotional argument, for the attack is fresh in people’s minds, and it strikes at a particular social problem that we have had to deal with recently, which is shootings in public areas.
She ends with an alternative look at whether guns shouldn’t be the most central part of the discussion, but bullets should be. For her final quote, she uses pathos again in the form of a quote from Chris Rock, which is, “everybody is talking about gun control…I think we need bullet control…if a bullet costs $5,000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders.”
Overall her argument is fairly sound and convincing. It grows stronger as you progress through the article, and this is I think a good quality of a paper. Sometimes it seems, however that she does have as much evidence as she does claims, and this detracts from her argument. Her use of pathos does create a convincing argument for gun control, even though her use of logos does not back her argument as much as it should.
No comments:
Post a Comment