Gun Reform for a Generation, an editorial posted in the NY Times on Jan 16, 2013 is an editorial about gun control. The author is not listed, but his or her position on gun control is not exactly the same as mine. The author deals with the 2nd ammendment, and how President Obama is doing the right thing by cracking down on gun laws. The author of this editorial is 100% for gun control, no matter what the extent. But, he has very poor facts on the issue. The only points he brought up was that of Obama's speeches given about gun control. The author does not appeal to my emotions, and may not appeal to anybody's emotions at all, except for those that are ignorant.…
American radio host and political commentator, Tammy Bruce, in her article, Why Gun Control Wont End Mass Murder, describes many statistics of gun violence. Bruce’s purpose is to make her readers aware of gun violence and the many factors contributing to it as well as how it is statistically unlikely that gun control will help. She adopts an aggressive tone in order to support those that agree with her. The main ideas expressed throughout this article are that politicians use shootings and gun violence for political gain and aren’t doing anything to stop it. She explains that gun control wont stop gun violence because of problems such as drugs leading to terrorists. Tammy Bruce in her article uses many statistics and viewpoints to support her claim against gun control.…
The author included numerous rhetorical strategies to reinforce his rather shocking stance that Americans love their guns and that those guns are here to stay. The authors use of visual descriptions, incidents, and statistics were all appropriate examples used to establish and display the ideas effectively. The composition of the article flows really well, a lot of information is presented but also condensed, mentioning only what is vital to the argument. The author is direct and to the point and the author does not deviate from the main argument, constantly coming back and endorsing his/her opinion. The author mentions, “many Americans have already come to the remarkable conclusion that the best route to a safer America is a better-armed America,” (“Leaders: America and Guns”). The author is constantly on point with his/her information. These statements are so stark and bold; they definitely resonate with the audience. An abundance of research and emotionally charged writing made this article a solid and convincing piece for…
A similar tactic was used by the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was wounded in a shooting in Arizona in 2011, as he challenged the NRA. He wrote in an opinion piece that “What most members of the NRA want from the organization and what the leadership is actually doing are not the same.” He wrote it for a Houston newspaper as thousands of NRA members were gathered in the city for their annual convention.…
Gun Control Gun control has been a major issue in the past few years, and many journalists have written columns and essays in newspapers that are expressing their opinions on the subject. Nicholas Kristof, whom has been writing for newspapers for over ten years, took it upon himself to write Our Blind Spot about Guns for the New York Times in 2014. In his essay, Nicholas argued that if we set laws and regulations on guns the same way that we have done to cars, the amount of deaths caused by guns would decrease dramatically. He uses various statistics and discusses multiple ways that regulations and laws have decreased the amount of deaths caused by cars, and he relates it back to guns in his very well written essay. Nicholas seems to be addressing politicians in his essay, but his overall audience are those who are reading the newspaper.…
In (JTATG) there are three sentences that stand out at the beginning and they are “The president wants still tougher gun control legislation and thinks it will work” ( Wilson). “ The public supports more gun control laws but suspects they will not work” (Wilson). “The public Is right” (Wilson). In the article it states that there are around 200 million firearms in private ownership and that around one-third of them are handguns.] For example, while it is true that the number of shooting rampages has increased in recent years, the rate of violent crimes and homicides for both Blacks and Whites (including those committed with firearms) has decreased significantly over the same period, despite the tremendous increase in the number of firearms in the U.S., according to both the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (Miguel A. Faria…
Authors have an option of using logos, ethos, and pathos, which helps attract the audience by using logic, credibility, and emotion in their writing. The NYT article, “ As Nuclear Security Summit Begins, Materials Remain Vulnerable to Theft” achieves this goal by implementing pathos. Sanger and Broad remark, “…especially in Belgium, where the attacks last week killed more than 30 people” (New York Times). This helps ensure that the audience feels sympathy for the victims and are aware of the importance of a nuclear threat. By using pathos the writers emotionally manipulate the audience and engage them to know more about the importance of nuclear threat. Writers are selective about the evidence that they use in their writing to make sure it has a positive impact in their story. Providing selective evidence that appeals to the audience emotions is one of the most used techniques. Every person feels sympathy to horrible situations such as the attacks in Belgium, therefore the writers decided to use evidence as this to hook people who are interested in the security of the nation. Including the bombings in Belgium aftermath was a very strategic move because every person has feelings and what better way to engage them than by getting them teary. On the other hand, the blog, “Doctors should still care about the threat of nuclear weapons” uses ethos to give the story credibility. His…
From the founding of our country up until modern times there has been a separation on the beliefs of civilians owning guns. But gun control simply put, is a waste of time. It is highly ineffective in areas that gun control has been enacted in the United States. As well as “Gun Free Zones” being centralized high-target opportunities. (Small areas densely occupied by unarmed and defenseless citizens.) Thus allowing (in the rare instances it occurs like Newtown, Aurora, and Virginia Tech) a shooter a densely filled area of unarmed people to fire upon, causing mass causalities. In such areas the only protection they have are, Police/EMS, or an illegally armed citizen to defend them in case of shootout situation.…
In the article there were discussions on gun control that I really just did not agree on for example, I do feel that gun control does stop some crimes but that it is so easy for an individual to obtain a weapon to that it really just not feel as if the world is a safer place to live in now that everyone is caring a weapon. I felt safer when only law officials were caring the weapons. I have always understood that people want to have the right to protect their families but I feel that it has gotten way beyond that. Protecting our families is not an issue the issue is weapons and the amount of weapons available and more and more guns are being not only sold but there are exchanging hands everyday, and this is a problem in where everyone thinks that gun-control laws are needed. With that being said I still do not agree…
“A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip” was published in the New York Times as a powerful rhetorical analysis that persuades the audience that gun control does not mean…
He utilized the French terrorist attack as a way to scare the readers and again put them in rage over this topic. I also noticed that he strategically placed this at the end of his article to leave the readers with panic and fear. Even though there isn't a high probability of getting killed in a terrorist attack, in the United States. The author also uses rationalizing as a tactic to make people feel as though everything is ok. He said that there is no weapon that could stop the killing in Colorado and San Bernardino. By the author stating this it allow the reader to feel like it was unpreventable thus changing their views about gun control. Red Herring was also used in the middle of the article in relation to how long to lock up criminals. Last but not least line drawing was used to state that gun control doesn't work and civilians should keep their guns. In conclusion, the author article doesn't support his claim. After carefully analyzing the article the author diverted the topic and just criticized the government for their actions. Thus making the article irrelevant to his claim. He focused more on the topic of mass shooting are unpreventable rather than why gun control shouldn't be implemented. The author is clearly abusing his power of involvement in the media to persuade people to agree with…
What would be going through your mind if you were in a restaurant and a mad man came in and began slaughtering people right and left including you family (Swasey 174)? Would you be thinking if they would ban guns this would have never happened? Probably not! What you were probably thinking is if I had a gun on me I could protect not only my family but also the others being slaughtered. This same scenario was on the mind of Suzanna Gratia as written in Elizabeth Swasey essay ”NRA Woman’s Voice”(174). People are starting to see a gun as an object of death and destruction, and not what they are intended to be.…
Over the years gun violence has been a prevalent in several parts of our nation. It has been depressing due to most of the persons involve in these volatile act are getting caught in the cross fire are young adults and children. In our society today we are having a debate on the topic whether gun laws are enforced enough and what are the necessary steps need to take to reduce these acts from occurring. Everyday more and more lives are affected on a consistent basis, Individuals are concern about their safety because guns are being used in increasing the numbers of lives taken each day. I find it to be disgraceful and disappointing for our young children growing up to hear about gun violence in our area or different part of the United States.…
With such a tense subject these groups must pick a clear target audience. The NRA must reach its target audience by taking into account several factors. The most important people they target of course are gun owners. This can include hunters, military veterans, and a plethora of people who use firearms for self-defense or other occupations. These demographics are the people the NRA will target. The NRA does not go out and convince you to buy firearms but rather protect your right to purchase one. The natural polarization of this issue leads the NRA to focus on people who are already pro-gun and it would be hard for them to change someone’s mind. It is important to find who owns the guns for the NRA to target. There are plenty of ways to gather this information. 30 percent of adults own guns while 36 percent of Americans could see themselves owning a firearm. The NRA is truly focusing on that 30 percent of Americans however may try to persuade more than another third of the U.S adult population that leans pro-gun. 42 percent of households have fire arms within them while some may not personally have the firearm it is still within their household and would concern them. 39 percent of adult males in the United States personally own a firearm which is nearly 17 percentage points higher than females. This would lead the NRA to target males over females. Age groups are fairly even. Nearly 27 percent of…
Cited: Chicago Public Media. "NRA Vs NEA." Guns | This American Life. WBEZ Chicago, 24 Oct. 1997.…