In Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns Ivins uses sarcastic humor, and analogies effectively when criticizing the gun laws that America has today. Ivins uses sarcasm and humor to mock her position on guns. Ivins also uses analogies. The use of these two devices make her argument very persuasive in her criticism. The points she brings up along with the rhetorical devices that she uses makes the satire effective. Ivins uses sarcastic humor in her satire . In the first sentence of her essay she begins with “Let me start the discussion that I am not anti gun. I am pro knife” ( Ivins 100). She then proceeds to list benefits of a knife over a gun. “A general substitute of knives for guns would promote physical fitness.” (line 3). Ivins uses these lines to show her position on gun laws. Ivins is using sarcasm and the substitution of knives over guns to state her position on the topic critically. The satirical device of sarcastic humor makes her satire effective. She immediately states her opinion on the gun …show more content…
Ivins compares the danger level of automobiles to guns. “...another lethal object that is regularly used to wreck great carnage” (line 8). “Obviously, this society is full of people who haven 't had enough common sense to use an automobile properly. But we haven 't outlawed cars” (line 9). She acknowledges a common rebuttal against gun laws, but then immediately argues against that. “We do however liscence them and their owners, restrict their use to Wyly 3 presumably sane and sober adults, and keep them, and keep track of who sells to whom. At the minimum, we should do the same with guns” ( line 9). The use of these two devices make her argument very persuasive in her criticism. The points she brings up along with the rhetorical devices that she uses makes the satire effective. She uses these devices to criticize the gun laws that are in place today. She effectively applies sarcasm and analogies to persuade the reader to think about her
Have you ever had a disagreement with someone about a difference of opinion? Sarah Vowell, in her book Shooting Dad, talks about how she has a very different viewpoint on guns. From a young age, she said that she does not like guns, while on the other hand, her father loves them. Vowell encounters obstacles with her father because of their differences but still learns to accept his passions, which proves how differences can be overcome. Vowell and her father express their own opinions very vividly to each other, which sometimes causes problems.
The controversy also lies on the fact that many people, who have used weapons, have used it for wrong reasons, such as murder or assault. Nugent makes a good point when he mentioned the lady in
The general argument made by Paul Waldman in his work, “The Case For Banning Guns,” is that gun control should be put into effect and certain firearms should be banned. More specifically, Waldman argues that abandoning these guns could decrease mass shootings and make America a much safer environment. He writes, “Yes, I’d like to ban guns. Almost all of them, at least the ones in private hands.” In this passage, Paul is suggesting that the United States would be much better off abandoning these weapons that leave communities with so much blood and gore.
In his untitled gun control and gun rights cartoon, Chris Britt establishes an accusatory tone using critical irony and a macabre diction to condemn the national threat disregarded by the Republican Party for ignorantly advocating unregulated licensing of guns. Chris Britt evidently displays, in his work, a frustrated sentiment towards the American federal government, specifically addressing the Republican Party. Deliberately, Chris Britt labeled the gun store as “GOP Guns and Gore” and highlighting that the store is “Open 24-7”. Bluntly, Britt specified “GOP” (“Grand Old Party”), interchangeably corresponding to the Republican Party, to emphasize his personal disdain against their party platform. Indisputably, through irony, Chris Britt exhibits
“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.
In modern society, guns are seen as a form of control. Those who have guns are able to overpower those who do not. This trend was set when guns were first invented and has stayed the same throughout history. The one place where guns are not a symbol of power and control is in literature, specifically “The Old Gun” and Hamilton. In Mo Yan’s short story “The Old Gun”, the protagonist is a hungry boy who does not even know how to use the titular firearm.
They use the pros and cons of gun control laws to their full extent showing no bias on either side of the argument. The writings are written in a properly formatted structure, consisting of a statement claim and evidence to support what is posited alongside credible sources that were consulted. These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words to influence the reader’s opinions. The reporting is factual and shows a high lack of appeal to emotion, making it objective. This article is completely reliable due to its lack of emotional appeal and its unbiased arguments of both
Victory for War In The War Prayer by Mark Twain,he talked about soldiers going to war and it relates kind of to all the wars that have happened before. He talks a lot about describing what the soldiers would go through and their families. He explained how soldiers were really patriotic about the war and the families saying a “ long prayer”. Twain uses satire to express what he thinks about war throughout his prompt he's describing about war and all the praying they did towards the soldiers who left to fight.
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
“Satire is traditionally the powerless against the powerful.” – Molly Ivins. Satire is a style of criticism that can be used in many ways and in many different situations. Occasionally satire is easy to find, other times it may be disguised. Most of the time satire is found in literature.
Saving the Modern World: One Satire at a Time There are so many problems that the world faces today, some more urgent than others. Some individuals choose to focus on the newest fashion style or celebrity breakup rather than focus on one that could bring about the doom of a nation. The use of satire in great literary works, television entertainment, and comics is an effective way to enlighten the world on the difficulties it faces.
Katie Lee British Lit 13 April 2016 Gun Control Research Paper: An Annotated Bibliography Dickerson, John. " Why Newtown Wasn’t Enough." The Slate. The Slate Group, a Graham Holdings Company, 17 Apr. 2013. Web.
The use of and the owning of guns is a very hot and debated topic in society today. For many, this is a life and death debate due to the recent and numerous school shootings. These school shootings have caused an outcry for more gun control, specifically in relation to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Despite these calls, increased gun control is not the answer. Most gun owners’ use their guns responsibly and for good purposes.
“Yes, people pull the trigger - but guns are the instrument of death. Gun control is necessary, and delay means more death and horror.” ("Eliot Spitzer. " BrainyQuote.com. Xplore Inc, 2016.