Rhetorical Analysis of John Lott’s “More Guns Less Crime” John Lott’s book, More Guns Less Crime explains how guns don’t increase crime however, guns do decrease crime rates in the United States. Chapter 2 titled, How to Test the Effects of Gun Control which contributes to one of Lott’s main focus in this book. Lott reviewed and conducted many surveys to determine whether gun control will increase or decrease the death rate. The question that arose and drew much attention to surveyors was, “Will these laws improve or degrade the quality of life when it comes to violent crime?” (22) This question forced an answer on everyone even those who support gun control due to the demanding need of self-protection against violent crime. While the midst …show more content…
Lott wants the readers and those who took the survey to feel a sort of hate for these criminals, which in turn will motivate his audience to think deeper and consider ownership of guns a positive thing.
In the second chapter of John Lott’s book he makes many references to logos. An example of this reference is when he states, “In contrast, crimes like auto theft and unattended cars seem unlikely to be deterred by gun ownership.” (29) This is a very logical statement which makes it almost too obvious and warps this sentence into a fallacy. Stating that unattended cars will not be deterred by guns is an unneeded argument. Lott is simply stating the obvious which in turns leaves this sentence almost …show more content…
An example of one weakness is shown when John Lott talks about concealed firearm laws which make people safer. When he supports this topic he only gives one perspective and that’s of someone who already had a concealed firearm. Lott should have shown both sides of this topic so his point wouldn’t be as muddy.
In addition to Lott’s weaknesses, he has many strengths in this chapter. One of the strengths is how he shows much data concerning crime rates and then he later correlates it to the right of concealed firearms. This reflection using stats makes his point very vivid and also very hard to argue with. Another strength shown by Lott in this chapter is how well his sentences are structured. He talks about one problem, shows the data and then moves on to this next point. This configuration helps the book flow smoothly and logically.
As a final point, this chapter talks about the statistics of crime and how it effects the law-abiding citizens. Lott shows to the world how concealed firearms can change citizens lives for the better in this book. In Lott’s argument, he urges for those who haven’t taken advantage of their second amendment to do so. This argument has been effective overall due to his supporting evidence of crime rates and how people lives are changed with a way to protect their
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
‘’Guns are responsible for over thirty-three thousand deaths in the United States annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).. In 2014, the CDC reported that 11,008 of the 15,872 homicides committed in the United States that year involved a firearm. Of the 42,826 suicides reported that year, 21,386 involved a firearm. These statistics have inspired efforts at the federal and state levels to enact gun control legislation to reduce crime and violence’’(‘’Gun Control’’). According to the statistic guns are held for over 33,000 deaths in the United States.
He identifies an argument that he can make in the case for more guns based on his own experience “On December 7, 1993, a bitter and unstable man named Colin Ferguson boarded an eastbound Long Island Rail road train…” and he was carrying a Ruger 9mm pistol. “…He killed six people and wounded 19 others before three passengers tackled him.” (Goldberg 71). This occurred on a train on which Goldberg regularly traveled and here he provides a first person point of view of his experience had he been on that train using a logos argument. Up to this point Goldberg has used logos data that a reader is familiar with or could easily find details on and are events that would have made the national news. Goldberg shares his first person experience how he could have been one of the victims of a mass shooting, and up to now Goldberg has shared details of the locations of the shootings, where guns are not allowed.
One Gun + One Bullet = Death among Millions Violence in the world can be described as a violent trend that will continue to become more violent with each new passing generation. The argument is that guns are the reason for violence in today’s society and it begins with just the simple purchase of one gun. It begins with hurtful words that turn to taking a shot at the enemies that appear right in front of the daily population. Gun violence is becoming more and more prevalent today. The article titled “New Gun Laws Won’t Save Lives” by Jim Lucas really grabs the readers attention making them want to read it.
In his article, “Gun Control Kills,” Jack Hunter tackles the controversial topic of gun control. Hunter makes the point that gun control is in fact bad for the United States and that banning guns would actually lead to more deaths per year, the opposite of the goal for those that support gun control. Hunter does this using a number of argumentative techniques in order to convince his readers that gun control is wrong. Many of the techniques that Hunter uses are effective in attempting to make people believe in his cause, however some of the points that he makes are also ineffective and somewhat discredit his point. There are times in the article in which Hunter shows his own bias towards the subject, and tries to service the article towards
Paul Barrett wrote about a discussion whether or not we should amend the second amendment. He used the words from a retired supreme court justice Paul Stevens to help justify the points on why we should amend it. The main points that came out are that the 2nd amendment was made for militias or the military to bear arms and didn’t let the federal government regulate weapons but only left it to the state governments. The right to bear arms is essentially not an unlimited one. As the country grows older the interpretation of the 2nd amendment changes as well.
Paper will discuss that controversial topic of concealed handguns. Being pro concealed weapons, I feel they can prevent crimes from happening and help people to defend themselves in dangerous situations. The contents of this paper will review the arguments for and against concealed handgun and will deliver a policy regarding the public health topic of concealed carry laws. Concealed handgun should be allowed for the main reason that they help to prevent crimes from occurring. Not only is carrying a handgun a right given to US citizens via the constitution (National archives, n.d.), but it's been shown that states with strict or bands on concealed weapons have higher gun involved murder rates (Gius, 2013).
Alexis Clarke Professor Frank English 110 29 October 2015 Gun Control Will Not Eliminate Crime The big issue of gun control in the United States, is that many people believe that it takes away the 2nd Amendment rights, which is the right to bear arms. Citizens of the United States are promised the the right to bear arms in the Constitution, and by applying gun control laws takes away that same right. Crime is high enough in cities with very few laws pertaining to gun control, but taking guns away from people who are registered with license will not solve the problem either. Placing more limitations on gun owners, particularly responsible gun owners, will not reduce gun violence.
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.
He cites reliable statistics and facts to argue that if guns were regulated as well as cars, the world would be a safer place. Kristof also includes a picture of Dodge City, Kansas from 1878 that shows an old town with a sign that reads, “The Carrying of Fire Arms strictly prohibited.” This helps strengthen his argument because Kristof is trying to say, “If they had restrictions on guns back then, why not now?” He incorporates a fact that, “Visitors to Wichita, Kansas, for example were required to check their revolvers at police headquarters” (Kristof 163.) Furthermore, authorities were trying to prevent gun violence back then just like it should be prevented today.
A decrease in incidence of gun-related violence has also decreased in the US during the time when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was in effect. There are two arguments dominating the gun control issue. The anti-gun control people believes that the problem is with the people not with the guns and imposing heavier sanctions, harsher punishments on criminals, and more armed guards should solve the problem of gun violence. On the other hand, the pro-gun control people argues that the easy accessibility of firearms directly correlates gun-related violence and mass shooting (Lemieux, 2014). Both arguments have its merits, but in dealing with the gun control issue, it is important to put ethics and public health implications into consideration (Boylan,
The gun ownership was legalized in United States in 1787, but crimes committed by the people who have guns still endanger the life or property safety of innocent citizens now. According to Follman’s study,“ since 1982 there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the United States, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii” (Follman 119). It shows that many criminals have guns and many people are under the fear state of being killed. As a result, it made the topic whether the government should control guns more strictly more controversial.
Some days crime rates are up and then the next they are down, what we do know is that America is becoming safer. In 2005, 11,346 persons were killed by firearm violence 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm, (National Institute of Justice). Surprisingly, a lot of gun violence in America is related to self defense. Between 1987 and 1990 it was found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually. This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time frame.
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.
Gun control has been a controversial issue for years and numerous solutions have been proposed and enacted. The debate sparked after tragic civilian attacks, like school shootings. An example, is the tragedy in 1999 at Columbine High School. Two teens attacked the school, killing 13 people and wounding more than 20 others before killing themselves. Following this attack, numerous solutions have been argued and purposed.
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.