Rhetorical Analysis Of Our Blind Spot About Guns

The following argument is in favor of gun control. The restrictions on guns in place today are not nearly sufficient considering the level of gun violence seen on a daily basis. In the article “Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives” it is stated, “The fact is that very few federal laws regulate the manufacture, sale or possession of firearms, and those currently on the books are filled with loopholes or significantly tie the hands of law enforcement.” Arming citizens would not reduce crime or allow for self-defense, it would merely place guns into the wrong hands of people who are not trained enough or mentally stable to handle them. This is why there are so many school shootings and public massacres on television constantly broadcasted

Nicolas Kristof uses many rhetorical devices to make points in his piece titled, Our Blind Spot about Guns. He compares the attributes of gun safety to the attributes of car safety and attempts to make a point that the government should regulate guns in the same way cars are regulated In this piece, Kristof tries to convince the reader that regulating guns, the same way cars are regulated, will an effective way to decrease the amount of deaths by guns every year. In the beginning of his writing, he lays out a factual calculation of how many Americans died annually before cars were regulated (161). He then uses a rhetorical device called an analogy when he states, “Yet, instead, we built a system that protects us from ourselves.

amendment is also not granted by the US constitution. To many people, the second amendment is not clear. It confuses a lot in that some people argue that those that have the rights to possess firearms for self-defense are only the military. It does not specify that the citizens have the right to own firearms for self-defense and personal use. A study conducted by a Yale Professor showed that the “shall-issue” laws resulted in a rise in the rates of the violence, crimes, rape, and robbery hence with this it could be concluded that ownership of firearms by citizens lead to an increase in the crime rates.

The article states, “Gun control deters violent crime as well as the death penalty” (Hunter). The author uses logos here to point out that gun control is an ineffective as the death penalty when it comes to preventing violence. This supports his argument against strict gun control because, according to Hunter, many Liberals claim to oppose the death penalty because it does little to prevent future crime, yet Liberals are for strict gun control. However, strict gun control isn’t going to prevent criminals from committing crimes, because criminals do not follow the law

Guns are crucial in American society. This is something many advocates of the 2nd Amendment and gun possession have been stating for decades. Although many believe that they have their own ideas about gun control in the US, they are not aware that their opinions are being influenced by biased media agencies. Not only is there pressure from the government, mass media cogitates their broadcasting information so that the public gets center minded by their theories, not leaving space for people to think in their own ways. An unbiased journalism is practically impossible, and this is proved and established by analyzing the truth of gun control news transmitted towards the public.

Furthermore, banning guns will not only anger citizens that rely on guns every day, but it will not nearly solve the problem surrounding terrorism as easily as they think it will. This is a point that Dana summers has clearly elaborated on with the use allusion. Within this cartoon, the reader can see three separate pictures that contribute to the ideology of the Democratic government. In the first picture we see a picture of the twin towers and a plane, this alludes to the famous twin towers terrorist attack also known as 9/11 where two planes flew into the twin tower buildings on September 11, 2001

The article, Testimony of Gayle S. Trotter, says, Anti-gun legislation keeps guns away from the mentally stable and law obedient, but it does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This is because regulation only affects the guns of the good citizens. Criminals will not be affected with the anti-gun taxes because criminals don 't listen to the law. More than 20,000 anti-gun laws are in effect throughout the United States. But these laws don 't do anything to help lower violent crimes.

However, this security presence doesn’t seem to be a heightened as one may seem as in early 2017, suspected shooter Esteban Santiago opened fire in a baggage claim area claiming the lives of five and injuring a number others (Mascia). This location was also noted as being a gun-free zone. The likeliness of minimalizing the severity of these scene would have been greatly increase if it weren’t for these gun-free ones restricting citizens from carrying a weapon to potentially neutralize the

The use of this rhetorical strategy is meant to mock owners of such guns saying that gun owners are really just paranoid and have succumbed to social pressure; they don't really need these objects, they just want them. People from all walks of life don't see owning these objects as something they want, but as something they need for protection, along with the fact that people who don’t own a gun currently aren't entirely opposed to owning one in the future. Actually over half, 52%, of all non-gun owners say they are open to owning a gun some point in the near or further future. This shows that it is not “social pressure” making gun owners continue to keep their firearms, rather they would want to continue protecting their families and that other people are seeing that as a viable option for themselves. If anything, in the current political climate we are in today, there would be much more social pressure for one not to own a gun than there would be to continue owning one.

Weapon control supporters would contend this data by saying that the insights are misdirecting, and that it is important to consider different factors, for example, the changing of times and in addition the ascent of medication and group brutality. They may have a point, yet as Washington, D. C.’s “kill rate expanded by 73%, whatever is left of the United States all in all accomplished a 11% reduction in murders” (Agresti and Smith, 2010). This is troublesome for them to clarify. A moment outline of the insufficiency of forbidding handguns is that of Chicago, Illinois. In 1982, Chicago passed a restriction on all handguns, aside from those that were pre-enrolled with the police division preceding the boycott.

Anyone that thinks gun control is the answer to the killing that is going on is wrong! Nothing will change until parents start teaching their children right from wrong. Gun Control is too much of a political something you do to win a battle or to get what you want and failing. Politicians talks about the need to increase gun restrictions to stop gun crime, but new and current gun laws are designed to fail in order to allow certain people to own them and make unhappy because of not having a vote others.

He believes that new rules and restrictions on firearms, will have little to no effect on accidental shootings, as well as mass murders. The writer is a reliable source in the

Where the weapons were obtained in the sandy hook shooting and the Orlando shooting were dramatically different. Lanza took the weapons from his mother who owned them legally, but Lanza was unable to have firearms because of his mental illness. Mateen was cleared by the federal background check even though the FBI did some monitoring on him. His radical beliefs caught the eye of the federal government, but someone 's religion can not be used to stip individuals of their rights. Lastly he explains that, “cultural beliefs are significantly related to people’s opinions about gun control, but the strongest, most consistent predictors of people’s gun control preferences are their political beliefs and affiliations,” (Wozniak 2).

An article in the Patriot Talon states that the right-to-carry gun laws have been “linked to an increase in violent crime.” Now this shouldn’t be a surprise; the more cars you have on the street, the more likely there is to be an accident. The same goes for guns. However, unlike driving, carrying a gun is not a necessity and gun extremists in America don’t believe this to be true. An opinion article in The Daily Beast shows that not everyone thinks open carry is a bad thing.

People who don 't believe in the need of stricter or new laws concerning guns argue that owning a gun doesn 't cause a crime, it deters it. Guns are necessary for protection and to be able to defend oneself and their family in case of attacks because the government isn 't able to take care of every individual, in conclusion there’s no other way to guarantee one’s safety but to arm oneself. If the gun laws were different and if it was harder to buy these kind of weapons, criminals would find other ways to arm themselves, people argue, consequently it is necessary for ones safety to be able to own a gun.