Nicolas Kristof's Rhetorical Devices In Our Blind Spot About Guns

Throughout his work, Kristof uses strong sources that strengthen his credibility and appeal to ethos. He references a book, A Biography by Michael Waldman, the president of of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. He quotes Waldman as stating, “Gun control laws were ubiquitous.” He then includes in his own work, “As a distinguished former congressman, Robert Cousins, put in 1910:

There have been so many gun incidents in the this world ours , we still don’t have a type of law for gun control policies, and there should be. There are about 100,000 Americans killed each year by guns. If the Congress could just lay some type of control on guns right now, we can save many lives from being in danger, stop all the school shootings, and have a better, more safe life. Gun policies can help lower crime rate and stop children and irresponsible adults from getting guns. Having a gun control laws can help save more lives in this world and stop having families suffer in pain because a mental man had killed a member that belongs to their family.

Supporters of gun control believe that the Second Amendment is the reason for all gun violence in our great nation. One of the reasons for these beliefs is that since the Second Amendment protects the right to have guns, it empowers people to buy and feel safe with that gun when it is actually a lethal weapon. Supporters believe that this is the reason that the United States is the country with the highest gun to resident ratio at 112.6 guns per every 100 people (www.telegraph.co.uk). With all these guns, there is a higher chance that the wrong person can get a hold of one and injure someone or themselves. Supporters also argue that the Second Amendment is the major reason why there are 33,000 deaths related to guns every year

Concealed handguns can make a thief or mugger flee if you use it for self defence. Should concealed handguns be permitted because they can help bring crime. So concealed handguns should be allowed because they could benefit law abiding citizens. Did you know concealed handguns can deter crime?Murders are brought down thanks to concealed handguns by 8.5%. The reason why murders are brought down by that percent,is because crime is deterred by concealed handguns because most of the time a murderer would use a knife, a pipe, a hammer, or even their own car.

One last thought on the topic, when there is a mass shooting in the United States, sales of guns go up the next day, this is because citizens feel the need to protect themselves and those around them. American gun culture is very well known as firearms are loved and cherished very much in the history rich United States. Here’s a thought, is the American culture to blame for the need of gun

(“Gun 440”). What the article is saying is that if you take away the handgun of a citizen who has done no harm, and when there is a need for the protection of your family and they have no gun then they have nothing else to do but hide and hope the criminal does not find them before the police come. In conclusion, Gun Control can be good in many different ways, until it interferes with the protection of someone else's life or family. To understand gun control more it is important to know about the laws passed, pros, and cons.

Gun control laws in America began with the writing of the United States Constitution; the document that provided a framework for the young country’s government, and provided all basic rights and laws that each American has and abides by. The second amendment to the constitution is for all Americans the right to keep and bear arms. The exact language of the text sparks much debate on how this right applies to the people, but many interpret it as the right for each individual American to keep firearms for their personal use. For the last few decades, much debate has been brought upon the amendment as the need for firearms has gone down while the risk of endangerment because of them has gone up. Because of the increasing in mass gun violence and

Some people argue that they are used for self-protection and having fun going to shooting ranges and hunting, but these fun things aren 't worth the price of human life. Having stricter gun control laws can save the lives of many Americans. We should adopt stricter gun laws in the U.S. to stop these unnecessary deaths. To begin, there have been many mass murder that have occured during these last few years, and the numbers are just increasing.

Legal Issue: Gun Control Level 4: Author’s Point of View In the documentary, Bowling for Columbine, what is filmmaker Michael Moore’s thesis or main idea about the cause(s) of gun violence? I think that Michael’s thesis states that owning a gun does not make you violent, it is your perception of what guns are and what violence is. If a person were to pull the trigger , that is their decision that they have made.

One of those points being that if one could find a way to actually ban guns and get rid of them so that no one anywhere could have access to a firearm, murder rates as well as maybe even crime would decrease simply because guns make it so much easier to do both of those things. Guns are dangerous and used in the wrong hands can bring destruction to anyone unlucky enough to be involved, including whoever is using the gun. The idea of Gun Control and what it means can vary widely, with big issue being what it would actually accomplish, if anything. One thing to consider with gun safety in mind is that in Chicago, Illinois, which has the most strict laws in the whole of the entire country, has the highest percentage of gun violence in the whole of the United States (Stell).

I agree with Mr. Kristof, gun violence has been ignored enough by the government and should be one of the governments priorities. Removing guns from America is too radical and “politically impossible” with some americans, yet Kristof finds a perfect balance with introducing “universal background checks,” “limits on gun purchases,” and “more research” on how to save lives from gun violence (Kristof). I admire how Kristof’s argument finds compromise between gun control supports and negators, for removing guns from the U.S. permanently would be unconstitutional and a violation of inalienable rights. I strongly agree that America should rectify gun laws since there are a plethora of people “waiting to go boom” and are qualified to get their “hands” on unrestricted weapons. The American government would save a multitude of lives if it were attentive with gun

A survey ran in December of the year 2014 resulted that American males were owning a gun protect them from being victimized. People that desire more gun control to protect American women from domestic abusers and unknown strangers would argue this by stating that in 1994 Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, a piece of legislation made to protect victims of domestic violence. According to the CDC 's article of "Leading Causes of Death Reports," for almost 15 years, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to pass

Guns are the cause of violence in America, the best way to reduce violence is stricter laws on guns. Stricter laws would reduce mass shootings by intensifying background checks. Mass shootings have become a familiar American topic in recent years. “In the wake of a fatal shooting at a community college in Oregon, Hillary Clinton plants to tighten regulations on those who manufacture, sell, and purchase guns.”

CJ Grisham, the writer of this article, states that open carry is a good thing in America. He states that if a criminal sees a target with a gun they aren’t as likely to attack them because “Criminals prefer soft targets.” Even though CJ makes a good point here, he is forgetting some key information. What about the criminal? Open carry gives everyone the right to carry their guns out in the open, even the criminal attacking other people.

“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