Get a Knife Essay
Get a Knife, Get a Dog but Get Rid of the Guns Essay
In “Get a Knife” Molly Ivins does a good job in using logos to argue and persuade her audience to ban guns from civilian ownership. Even though good points were made as to the reason why guns are bad, not everything was easy to agree with. Ivins argument was based on bias assumptions and flawed examples that caused her argument to decline. Ivins begins her argument by giving the counter argument. “I am not antigun. I’m proknife.” (Paragraph 2) This gives off the allusion that she has an unbiased claim by being able to understand the opposing argument. Ivins makes the assumption that all people who own a gun are fat and lazy, stupid, psychosexual males who use guns to get off. “A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness.” (Paragraph 3) Ivins use of satirical humor makes fun of the people who use guns. However, that is a bias assumption. Not everyone who owns a gun is a coach potato. It is good to point out that “We’d turn into a nation of good runners” (Paragraph 3) but some people are faster than others. This would cause the same effect guns cause, coach potatoes. Why bother running if in the end you’re just going to get caught anyway? Ivins tries to argue using pathos, logos and ethos. “As a civil libertarian…” (Paragraph 4) Ivins uses ethos to give herself credibility. Instead of being a hippy, she is a ‘civil libertarian’ this gives the reader the impression that she is someone worth listening to and is worthy of respect. Ivins use of logos is simply amazing. “A well – regulated militia… shall not be infringed.” (Paragraph 5) Her direct quote of the second amendment gets readers thinking. And her use of the name “Thomas Jefferson” in paragraph 6 helps to strength her argument. Readers will begin to wonder and question whether this is how our countries founders wanted things to go. Yet, her example to promote her quote declines the argument she built in the beginning.
In “Get a Knife” Molly Ivins does a good job in using logos to argue and persuade her audience to ban guns from civilian ownership. Even though good points were made as to the reason why guns are bad, not everything was easy to agree with. Ivins argument was based on bias assumptions and flawed examples that caused her argument to decline. Ivins begins her argument by giving the counter argument. “I am not antigun. I’m proknife.” (Paragraph 2) This gives off the allusion that she has an unbiased claim by being able to understand the opposing argument. Ivins makes the assumption that all people who own a gun are fat and lazy, stupid, psychosexual males who use guns to get off. “A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness.” (Paragraph 3) Ivins use of satirical humor makes fun of the people who use guns. However, that is a bias assumption. Not everyone who owns a gun is a coach potato. It is good to point out that “We’d turn into a nation of good runners” (Paragraph 3) but some people are faster than others. This would cause the same effect guns cause, coach potatoes. Why bother running if in the end you’re just going to get caught anyway? Ivins tries to argue using pathos, logos and ethos. “As a civil libertarian…” (Paragraph 4) Ivins uses ethos to give herself credibility. Instead of being a hippy, she is a ‘civil libertarian’ this gives the reader the impression that she is someone worth listening to and is worthy of respect. Ivins use of logos is simply amazing. “A well – regulated militia… shall not be infringed.” (Paragraph 5) Her direct quote of the second amendment gets readers thinking. And her use of the name “Thomas Jefferson” in paragraph 6 helps to strength her argument. Readers will begin to wonder and question whether this is how our countries founders wanted things to go. Yet, her example to promote her quote declines the argument she built in the beginning.