Jeremy Greenfield
Janel SpencerWrt 101s
9/25/19
Analyzing rhetorical arguments: Gun Control.
Guns have taken center stage in American politics.Mass shootings have been at the forefront of the discussion. Everyone can agree, they are bad, no one wants them, and we all want a safer America. In a country that seems more likely to ban guns arguments are being made to defend the Second Amendment. In the town hall article “We don’t need gun control to stop mass shootings”by Justin Haskins(Nov.6.2017) the argument is made that stricter gun laws are not needed in order to stop mass shootings using an array of logical facts surveys studies from reliable sources and passionate language Haskins makes his compelling case
Using the rhetorical appeal to logos the article talks about the reasons to not use gun control. One of his first logical arguments is it the data does not support stricter laws he points out that if they did states with lax gun laws would be the safest from gun homicides. However, he cites a study from the Law Center to prevent gun violence but this is not the case five out of Six States with an “F” grade in terms of gun control are also among the bottom five states with the lowest gun homicide rate. It’s logic implies that lacks or less gun laws might have something to do with that low homicide rate. Haskins goes on to say that strict gun laws don’t prevent mass shootings either a bold claim, but one backed by facts. Citing a Washington Post piece published in 2017 that despite having stricter gun laws in both the UK and Australia the number of mass shootings has not gone down since they enacted those laws. Askins also logically points out that perhaps most importantly gun control laws leather effective or not restrict essential inalienable rights that belong to every American adult ellipses after all if reducing gun violence is a good excuse for limiting gun rights then why not enact another Pro Edition to stop alcohol-related deaths this quote / observation points out the slippery slopes American find themselves in if people give up this for safety what else will you give up a bone-chilling revelation When taking into deeper thought where would we ultimately draw the line? And just giving up our own ability to defend ourselves begin to even justify such action. Between this observation and the other facts discussed earlier Haskins makes a wonderful logical argument next shall be discussed the next of his rhetorical arguments to see if the quality stays the same or degrades
Asking uses his appeal to Authority or ethos to also make his case. Using both cited sources from reliable institutions, and quotes from influential historical figures. The ethical arguments begins at the very beginning of the article with a quote from Benjamin Franklin “those who give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety” He uses the quote from Benjamin Franklin to show us how important the American people’s Liberty to keep and bear arms is. Training our Liberty of protection and to defend ourselves is too valuable. This quote acts as a great launching point for the rest of this article and distinctly sets the tone of the importance of our liberties. This makes it an effective appeal to ethos however there are more arguments to be made. Throughout the article there are a multitude of different organizations cited and sourced these include the Law Center to prevent gun violence discussed previously. Now to go into more detail about the Washington Post and the statistician who wrote it Leah libresco. When talking about the UK and Australia he uses this source to make his case buying Haskins viable credibility as the Washington Post is a reputable and in some cases A more left-leaning source of information. Labosco’s quote” neither Nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related crime that could be attributed to their BuyBacks and bans”. This is a brilliant move of ethos because now he has The credibility of not only a usually opposing voice but now of two full countries and their own experiences with such gun laws. It forces the audience to ask themselves if it did not work there why would it work here succinctly making his own argument for him.
In the article the appeal to emotion is made in a way to advocate for Less gun restricted America through the use of passionate and emotionally manipulative language. It is the weakest part of the article but one argument made nonetheless. The most effective use of it is at the very beginning where he States “There’s literally no where in the United States in which a tragic mass shooting isn’t possible” This is a powerful emotional attention-grabbing headline, the first part of the sentence instills fear into its audience while the word tragic makes the audience feel sad. He uses other language like this calling Shooters murders, using words with negative connotations like assault in conjunction with words that have a positive connotation like freedoms throughout the article are these little tiny examples and uses of emotionally-charged and manipulative language.
Throughout the article the rhetorical strategies were implemented in many ways to The Logical facts from reliable sources the quotes from influential historical figures and a subtle and passionate use of language Haskins makes his argument known while effective on me I know I’m slightly biased towards what he is saying. That I prefer logical and ethics to emotional in my arguments. I cannot say it would be effective to a more biased viewpoint against Haskins or a more emotional audience I however found myself quite persuaded through his rhetorical arguments.
Writing 101s blog 