Gun violence has been a massive issue through the modern age of humanity and has created a sense of division regarding the solution to this epidemic. In Adam Gopnik’s essay “Shootings”, Gopnik addresses the issue of gun violence and demands a change in American government policy to prevent the tragic killings of innocent lives. Gopnik harnesses the tool of emotion and passion to drive his essay. In Charles Cooke’s essay “Gun Control Dishonesty”, Cooke takes the polar opposite of Gopnik’s approach by utilizing factual evidence to prove the futility of gun control. Cooke’s essay overflows with logic and reason. He uses facts to debunk the fallacies of gun control while Gopnik chooses the power of emotion to fuel his essay. However, both authors …show more content…
Gopnik starts his essay with a sobering reality of the horror and terror that followed the Virginia Tech shooting. He tells his audience, “To imagine the feelings of the police as they carried the bodies and heard the ringing [of the phones] is heartrending; to imagine the feelings of the parents who were calling —dread, desperate hope for a sudden answer and the bliss of reassurance, drawing grief— is unbearable” (Gopnik 694). Surprisingly, Gopnik uses emotion here to effectively recognize a severe problem in this modern age of history. He uses his word choices to pull his audience in to address the problem violence. His statement included words such as heartrending, dread, dawning grieve and desperate to persuade his readers into calling for the same change that he calls for: stricter gun laws. However, Gopnik’s immaturity is yet again revealed when he says, “The whole world saw that the United States has more gun violence than other countries because we have more guns and are willing to sell them to madmen who want to kill people” (Gopnik 695). Here again stands emotion, ineffective without logic to support it. Cooke recognizes the severity of the shootings such as Sandy Hook. He states, “That Sandy Hook involved little children made it that much harder to bear. But it did not change the salient fact: that massacres and private sales have pretty much nothing to do …show more content…
Cooke’s voice becomes identifiable through statements such as “During the tantrum that he threw after the Toomey-Manchin bill had been defeated, President Obama mentioned ‘Sandy Hook’ four times,‘Newtown’ five times, and ‘children’ eight times… He brazenly connected his legislative efforts to ‘Tucson and Aurora and Chicago’” (Cooke 3). Cooke continues on to describe President Obama’s themes as “childish” (Cooke 3). These comments show Cooke’s distaste for President Obama’s efforts to create a gun-controlled country. Gopnik, on the other hand, utilizes his gift for sarcasm in his voice. Although his lack of facts and an overabundance of emotion covers his essay, his voice sells his point well. When describing the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shooting, he says, “But the parents, and the rest of us, were told that it was not the right moment to ask how the shooting happened — specifically, why an obviously disturbed student, with a history of mental illness, was able to buy guns whose essential purpose is to kill people — and why it happens over and over again in America (Gopnik 694). His sarcasm draws a laugh and also causes his readers to think his way. However, his voice remains entertaining until the second half of his essay where his charming sarcasm turns into an annoyance. He writes, “People talked about the shooting, of course, but much of the conversation was
David Benjamin Mrs. Brenner’s Class Period 7 English 8th Advanced 31 March 2015 The Sandy Hook Massacre Many young people have been diagnosed with depression; they show feelings of depression through acting out and bullying. The extreme example of this is hurting others through the use of weapons and force.
Nicholas Kristof, a writer for the New York Times, and in his op-ed article titled “Lessons From the Virginia Shooting” (Aug. 26, 2015), proposes that the lesson learned from the shooting of two journalists in Virginia should be different gun laws that should somewhat reflect the already standing laws that Americans already have in place. While Kristof gives his attempt at fixing gun violence in the United States, he fails make his point on many different levels. Kristof begins by reminding readers of the Virginia shooting follows with statistics relating to gun violence in the United States, then starts to recommend that the gun control laws should be changed to match that of other things that have safety regulations. Kristof is trying to
On December 14th, 2012, the lives of thousands, and indirectly millions changed after the shooting of twenty children and six teachers were fatally shot by the infamous Sandy Hook Elementary school shooter, Adam Lanza. This event was so dramatic and sickening the world stopped in it’s tracks waiting for what was going to happen next. In the aftermath of the tragedy, the cauldron was stirred and the underlying question resurfaced; What should we do about gun control laws? Should the people of America even have guns? After a number of shootings occurring and Sandy Hook occurring, Barrack Obama addressed the event and spoke about “reducing gun violence” and promoting “gun safety” drawing many citizens to support his cause.
Wuertenberg uses examples of slave periods to illustrate how gun ownership equaled power and suggest how white men wanted to ensure gun ownership exclusively for them. In conclusion, Wuertenberg argues that guns are a symbol of power that through history have become more efficient when it comes to “Making America Great Again”. The rhetorical strategies used by Nathan Wuertenberg are effective, because they help support his argument and explain how white man depend on guns to believe their powerful and have authority over
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
Brooks goes on to quote writer Tali Sharot to support his argument, which suggests that ““better facts tend to be counterproductive on hot-button issues like gun control.” As Tali Sharot notes in her book “The Influential Mind,” when you present people with evidence that goes against their deeply held beliefs, the evidence doesn’t sway them. Instead, they invent more reasons their prior position was actually correct. The smarter a person is, the greater his or her ability to rationalize and reinterpret discordant information, and the greater the polarizing boomerang effect is likely to be” (Brooks,
Sophie Jacob Prof. Irwin English 1120 14 February 2023 Critique Essay: David Hogg David Hogg, a gun control activist, wrote an op-ed about gun violence for Fox News, one of the most right-wing news sites. His article, “Mass Shootings Can be Stopped Only if We Work Together”, is an account of his experience in the Parkland, Florida 2018 shooting and a plea for right-wing Americans to join his fight for gun control. He uses a pathos approach and his personal experience with school shootings, adds his thoughts on the matter, and finishes with an attempt to find common ground, with the hope that his message will reach conservative America. Hogg heavily utilizes pathos in his argument. His article begins by describing what losing a loved one in
Furthermore, when someone opens fire on a gathering of innocent people, they strip them of a fulfilling and unharmed life. All those injured, all those killed, and all the families of those affected were brought unnecessary suffering. To end this injustice, we must first realize the value that every single human life has. The statistics are appalling in themselves, but gun violence is so normalized now that they remain just that. Every data point represents a human person, and each uptick in the averages signals an outcry for
“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.
The essay “Shootings” fits the argumentation category when the author provides examples of fatal gun shootings that have occurred around the world in which the author is trying to convenience the reader that assault weapons lead to gun violence. In the essay, the author provides the readers with a very visual and descriptive hook, “the cell phones in the pockets of the dead students were still ringing… (pg. 674).” In addition, evidence is also another argumentative concept that the author provides. The author, Gopnik, provides factual supporting evidence on a case, “in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, a gunman killed sixteen children and a teacher at their school (pg.675).” However, Gopnik provides refutation in the essay by stating, “rural
Roger McGrath and Warren Burger provide different perspectives on the continuing debate over gun regulation in the United States. Although these authors establish opposing conclusions, both understand that gun related crimes are becoming increasingly common and therefore pose a threat to the domestic tranquility of the nation. Their controversy is centered around whether or not increased gun restrictions will lower criminal activity. McGrath, in his article “A God-Given Natural Right”, argues that increased gun control will only disarm law abiding citizens leaving them defenseless therefore providing incentives for criminals to break the law. However, Burger’s emphasis on the unrestricted distribution of firearms in his article “The Right to
Gun Control Hypocrisy America has recently seenseveral shooting and indiscriminate firing incidents in schools, malls, and religious place. Do the U.S. people need gun control laws? Should everyone own a gun for self-defense? There are many questions that rise about gun control, but most of them do not have answers.
The Gun Control Debate In recent years, there’s not many topics on the political spectrum that aren’t absolutely polarizing. This essay will attempt to show each side’s generalized opinions, and find flaws in each of their arguments, as every ethical argument has flaws. Analyzing each side will help anyone understand their own opinions better, because without the demonization of the opposite party, ethics get much more difficult. Gun control is everywhere in the news right now, as three months into the year, the country has had12 school shootings in 2018. Exploring the ethics of gun control can get messy and emotional, but it’s important to understand all sides of a subject.
Gun Control in America Gun control in America is a highly debated subject. James Wilson speaks against gun control in his article “Gun Control Isn’t the Answer”. Gun laws need to be more restricted. Gun control reform is needed to safeguard children and prevent access to those with mental illness and a criminal background. Wilson talks about the shooting at Virginia Tech using it as a platform to talk about people not weapons being responsible for the tragedy.