March 12th, 2013
In his essay "Another Accolade for Charter Arms Corp.", Mike Royko focuses not on John Lennon’s death, but on the type of gun that was used to kill him. He argues that the model of a gun makes a great deal of difference when killing someone. By ignoring the shooting of the celebrity, Royko uses irony to show how idiotic the debate on the gun is. He commences his essay by asking the readers "what difference does it make what kind of gun was used ? " and answers by saying that it indeed makes a great deal of difference. At this point, we know the author’s rhetorical strategy will consist on focusing on anything but the death of the famous musician.
As mentionned before, Royko uses a lot of irony in his essay as a way of showing the readers how ludicrous the gun debate really is. Per example, in the beginning of his essay, Royko says : "And when people become emotional about guns, as many do when somebody famous is killed, they tend to lump all guns together. They don’t show proper respect for an excellent gun, such as the Charter .38." By saying that this type of gun deserves respect, despite what it did to the famous superstar, the author is clearly trying to show no empathy for Lennon as a form of rhetorical strategy. Later on, he proceeds by saying : "Now the Charter Arms Corp. has the unique distinction of having two famous people shot by one of their products, I wonder if they have considered using it in their advertising." Here, he takes his irony to another level by assuming the death of a celebrity should be something the company should be proud of and that advertising it would lead the customers to purchase the weapon. Using irony for this type of subject was a brilliant idea, but in this essay, Royko uses too much of it.
Secondly, Mike Royko uses the model of the gun as an argument of his irony. He also constantly talks about the importance of the quality of the weapon. Per...