“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 …show more content…
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. One weakness in Kristof’s essay, is that he wants guns to be sensibly regulated like cars. But not all the regulations enforced on cars are 100% safe, just like some of the ideas that were proposed for gun safety. Overall, Kristof has a valid argument but some points in his essay could use some better thinking. To sum up, Kristof believes guns should be regulated just like cars have been over the years. He effectively uses strong appeals to logos and pathos to build his credibility and gain the audience’s
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
“Gun Control for Dummies” is a comic illustrated by William Warren. The comic depicts a before and after situation. In these situations, a law-abiding citizen originally has two firearms and is standing next to a criminal who also has a gun. However, in the “after” scenario the citizen no longer has possession of firearms, but the criminal next to him does. The author’s claim in this comic is that gun control will not prevent criminals from keeping or obtaining guns but will leave law-abiding citizens without protection.
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
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.
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
Seventy people are shot, twelve which lost their lives. How did this happen? How did the gunman obtain the weapon? This could have been prevented. A gun control advocate for the past 10 years, State Senator Jacqueline Collins, wrote the article “Gun control is long overdue,” published February 1, 2014 in the Chicago Tribune, in which she argues the need for stricter gun control laws.
In the article, The Argument Gun Rights Supporters Can’t Respond To published by Current Affairs and written by Nathan J. Robinson, provides readers with avid arguments towards the support of gun control. Robinson compares guns to a “magic death app” and destroys every argument made by gun rights supporters. I agree with every statement that Robinson made despite the absurdity of them. I especially appreciated the statement “If someone had a button on his desk with a skull and crossbones on it, that could instantly vaporize anyone in the room, that person would probably be thought of as deranged. And yet if an executive keeps a gun in his desk, he is treated as legitimately exercising his right to self-defense.”
The last 18 years have been experienced by too many shootings. We must take action to help stop gun violence. In furtherance of reducing gun violence, we must handle the problem of easy access to guns and address men's mental health. One way to reduce gun violence is to regulate the easy access to guns. In the article," How to Reduce Shootings", by Nicolas Kristoff in The New York Times Kristoff claims how automobiles could kill as many people as guns but they don't because we regulate them and limit easy access to automobiles.
Kristof somewhat effectively argues that if guns and their owners were controlled in the same way that cars and their drivers are, thousands of lives could be protected each year by using persuasive techniques. Kristof’s essay adequately compares car regulations to gun control. He is extremely comprehensive on reasons why we should have gun regulations similar to automobiles controls. Kristof contrasts the statistics of firearm and automobile deaths to move the readers to harmonize with his opinion of the subject.
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.
Citizens need to stand up and not take the blame for other individuals who choose to inflict harm. Law-abiding citizens should not be penalized for the actions of a few deranged people. It is true some weapons do not belong in the hands of untrained people, and the National Rifle Association has been instrumental in pushing for responsibility and safety on the part of gun owners without imposing too much on the Second Amendment right (Kopel). Critics such as David DeGrazia of George Washington University argue that private ownership of handguns leads to more social harms than it prevents (Hsiao and Bernstein). David DeGrazia proposes a moderate control of guns meaning that only individuals with a need for self-protection be allowed to own a gun and only after a complete course in safety (Hsiao and Berstein).
Moreover, the first source that will be synthesized in this essay includes the article titled "Gun Control" which comes from the Gale online database, highlights several events that has taken place in the United States that raised the question of controlling guns. Some examples of such events can be found around the first line of this introductory paragraph. The second that will be synthesized into this essay is an article in a Tseh 2 scholarly journal titled, "Making Guns Safer" by Stephen P. Teret et al. The focus of thus source is about how personalizing weapons can effectively prevent gun-related accidents, injuries, and reduce the likelihood of teenage suicides in both children adults. Lastly, the last source that will be synthesize into essay is another article from the same database as the first source and second sources titled, "Is Gun Control the Answer to Mass Shootings?"
(King, par.2) This means that all the drama and debates going on about gun control are not worth it. Gun control is not effective at all. This is important because people should know not to be spending their time supporting gun control when there are other types of weaponry that could do the same harm. “Now, rather than candidate Obama promising not to ‘take everyone’s guns away,’ he openly muses about an Australian-style gun control regime that would, incidentally, require taking everyone’s guns away.”
The general arguments made by Paul Waldman in his work, “The Case For Banning Guns,” and by Shikha Dalmia in her work, “The Case Against Banning Guns,” is that there have been numerous issues arising in America due to a national debate about gun control. Both authors state their personal opinions about whether or not guns should be permanently banned, regulated, or even if the problem is not the gun, but the person who pulls the trigger. They each provide various examples and briefly mention a few past mass shootings to support their beliefs on this tragic topic. Beginning with Waldman’s argument, he believes that almost all guns should be banned. Although he knows that this task is impossible, he thinks that America would be a far better society without them.
Strict regulations and limitations have been pursued already and clearly do not suffice. Statics brought to attention by gun control opponents, show that gun control laws have done little to reduce crime rates. Several restrictions have been made on certain guns, considered as overly dangerous, though in the hands of an unstable criminal even a legal hunting gun can be deadly. Countless restrictions have been made, however people have still found ways around them. If people are unstable and determined enough, they will find a gun, regardless of the restrictions or regulations.
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.