Persuading the Public on Increasing Gun Control The article Who the N.R.A. Really Speaks For is written by Alan Berlow who has had writing appear in Harper’s and Atlantic Monthly, and is the author of Dead Season: A Story of Murder and Revenge. The target audience for this article is people who have more liberal views that have the ability to change the way the N.R.A. functions. This article was published in The New York Times soon after the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon with the purpose of saying that the N.R.A. is not the voice of the public, or safety, but is currently the voice of criminals. The author’s stance on the issue is that gun owner’s views are not being represented properly by the N.R.A., and that gun …show more content…
One example of Berlow’s strong word choice is using many synonyms for killed, like slaughtered and massacred. These two synonyms allow for the feeling of the word to sink in better, as opposed to killed or murdered. The article Berlow has written is persuasive because of his solid writing skills, one component of which is his syntax. One sentence in which Berlow displays his knowledge of syntax is in the sentence “[...] the N.R.A. has single-handedly dictated the shape of the debate over guns for decades” (Berlow 1). The way he has arranged the sentence instills the comparison of the N.R.A. to a dictatorship and the understanding that they have not had people’s best interests at heart for many years. The author’s sentence fluency often connects paragraphs together in a way that allows for the meanings of his words to be fully understood. This is evident in the sentence “[...] Americans should understand the [...] role the N.R.A. plays, not only in thwarting sensible gun safety laws but also in undermining law enforcement by abetting gun traffickers, criminal gun dealers and criminal gun users” that is followed in the next paragraph by the sentence “The N.R.A. [...] often professes to speak for all gun owners [...]. But on some issues, most gun owners clearly reject the party line.” These two …show more content…
The article does in fact close with a statement that challenges others to think differently. The sentence “[...] the N.R.A. was no longer the voice of law-abiding gun owners, but rather a voice for criminals” (Berlow 4) is the one that does just that. The article is relatively eloquent by returning to key pieces mentioned earlier in the editorial at the end of it. Lastly, the conclusion certainly unifies Berlow’s argument. He states outright that the N.R.A. is a voice for criminals which signifies that it is a corrupt organization. All of these components are what make this editorial very compelling and
“The lobbying arm of the NRA” was established as members believed that, in order to protect their right to bear arms, they had to directly impact decision-making in Washington (NRA-ILA n.d.). Due to the contemporary debate of whether the number of gun regulations should increase, the Institute has retained the media’s spotlight since 2008 because of their prominent public influence, especially during the former presidency of Barack
Gun-rights has been a constant issue within society for what seems like forever. People strongly advocate for their beliefs about this topic all the time, but in many people's eyes nothing seems to change that would solve the actions that are taking place. People feel strongly about both sides, but commonly share the idea of the outcome. This past Sunday in Las Vegas is an example of the actions that people are advocated to prevent. Andrew Rosenthal, writer of the New York Times, argues that the way to solve this issue and prevent future actions like what occurred in Las Vegas to happen is by limiting the power or the ease of purchase.
Continuing on to pages 5 and 6, Dickinson brings to light how LaPierre saved the NRA by rebuilding its power, but at the same time destroyed a historic gun-control effort. Cities started to file lawsuits against gun manufacturers for the social costs of gun violence with the confidence that they could win because they had previously won similar suits against the tobacco companies. In response to the lawsuits, the NRA went to work at the state level, securing bills that would ban localities from suing gun manufacturers. To limit future damage, Smith & Wesson decided to negotiate a settlement with Cuomo. Smith & Wesson agreed to make safer guns and to clean up distribution networks.
Pro gun-control activists argue this as they are of the point of view that gun access is too easy and that this access is causing danger in society; they clearly value safety, particularly for human life. They follow the ideology of socialism because they want social order and for everyone to be able to access the same things, including a limited access to guns. Socialism is about control and pro-gun control advocates are all about control, specifically of the distribution and legality of guns. Pro-gun control advocates often believe the the NRA are the cause of most gun related incidents; there is even a website that is attempting to stop the NRA. This website ‘Stop The NRA’ use the campaign line “join StopTheNRA.com and the millions of Americans
Oppose to Hilary Clinton who believes in Mr. Webster studies at John Hopkins which lead to the conclusion of gun homicides. The data from past and present still does not convince the NRA. Eric Lichblau conclude his article by saying that the NRA spend millions a year on ads, and other things trying to keep gun laws the way they are
To understand the extent of how common mass shooting and gun violence is in our nation and why it feels like the nations is numb to gun violence, president Obama in his last national, which he was addressing the gun violence tragedy at Umpqua Community College, Roseburg, Oregon, said, “The reporting is routine. My response here at this podium ends up being routine. The conversation in the aftermath of it. We've become numb to this.” If the president expressed his feeling towards the frequency of gun violence tragedy and how predictable giving a national eulogy was, then it would be safe for me to assume that gun violence is a national issue that needs to be addressed and since nothing has changed so far, it is evident that the presidents speech is not as impactful towards law makers and the
“Our Blind Spot about Guns” Rhetorical Analysis Essay American Journalist, Nicholas Kristof, in his essay, “Our Blind Spot about Guns”, addresses that if only guns were regulated and controlled like cars, there would be less fatalities. Kristof’s purpose is to emphasize how much safer cars are now than in the past, while guns do not have the same precautions. He constructs a compelling tone in order to convince the reader that the government should take more control on the safety of guns and who purchases them. Kristof builds credibility by successfully exerting emotional appeals on the audience, citing plausible statistics, and discussing what could possibly be done to prevent gun fatalities. Kristof begins his essay by discussing how automobile
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Many believe this, but columnist Nicholas Kristof, author of “Our Blind Spot about Guns,” published in 2014 in the New York Times, disagrees. A rhetorical analysis should consist of: logos, pathos, and ethos. Kristof’s use of logos is strong due to the amount of facts and statistics he offers to his audience, but he fails to strongly use pathos and ethos, due to the lack of these elements Kristof’s argument is weakened.
It suggests that the government, but more specifically Congress, puts gun violence above the means of fighting against it. Even more so, it shows that gun violence reins over attempts to hinder it in any way and how Congress is weak because it consistently fails to effectively do anything about gun violence in America. However, congressional gridlock can be more than Congress’ refusal to pass laws that are important The United States’ wellbeing. It can be the slow-moving process of passing a law or bill to benefit Americans.
The PBS program “Gunned Down: The power of the NRA” highlighted how the NRA continues it’s stranglehold on the government and gun policies. It is quite clear that gun control advocates attempt to play off the emotion of citizens whereas pro gun advocates fear the public into believing the government is attempting to steal their guns and liberties. The side of the gun control advocates can be seen through the likes of President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Conversely, the pro gun effort is shown through Ringleader Wayne LaPierre who continues to save the NRA and second amendment rights. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were both portrayed as compassionate, caring individuals that were fighting for a life or
Regulating guns will not stop all of the killings that are occurring in America, and there are better ways to cease the killings than regulating guns. Body Paragraph One: Topic Sentence: Regulating mental health will be more effective in ceasing killings with guns than regulating guns. In an analysis provided, 22 percent of the perpetrators of 235 mass killing, could be considered mentally ill, many of which were carried out with firearms (Qui). Almost 25% of mass shooting killers are being considered mentally ill
On the issue of gun control, I had always thought along the lines of opposing or supporting the issue but had never thought that there could be another argument different from these two main ones that could be discussed. It was therefore quite refreshing to look at the issue from Novak’s point of view. The fact that he provided evidence to support his claim that law enforcement has worked before in reducing gun violence cases made his article all the more interesting and believable. He shows that the debate on gun control may just have been pointless all this time as the issue that should be discussed is really not whether people should have guns or not but rather how to enforce the law to ensure that perpetrators of gun violence are
A weapon in the wrongs hands is the maximum danger humanity can face. Nowadays, violence and delinquency in society are viewed as the maximum problem solver. Humanity is full of chaos; hate and envy seize our souls. Guns are the ultimate security for some citizens but for others, these add to a feeling of defenselessness. Throughout history, any topic related to guns means a plethora of problems.
In today’s society, one of the most alienating issues in American politics is gun control. More specifically, the issue is whether or not guns should be banned in the United States. Some people would say that guns should be banned because it would reduce crime as a whole and keep citizens safer. These people, enthusiasts of stricter gun laws, fear being safe in their country where there are so many people who have access to guns. Opponents of this argument, however, also fear losing safety.
The article states from executive vice president and CEO of the NRA, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” (Carla Field) This is an entirely unrealistic statement and really conveys the possible god complex certain human beings have when shown a dangerous situation. There is no factual evidence that can be given to back up the statement that every time there is a bad person with a gun, a good person armed can play life and death and save the situation. This heroic mentality displayed to the world by heroes creates a damaging false narrative of life presented to youth and society constantly.