Writing 101s blog

Jeremy Greenfield
Janel Spencer
Wrt 101s
3 October 2019

Analyzing Rhetorical Arguments: Gun Control. 

Guns have recently 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 where people want to get rid of the Second Amendment, arguments are being made to defend the Second Amendment. In the Townhall article “We don’t need gun control to stop mass shootings” by Justin Haskins(Nov.6.2017) the argument is made stricter gun laws are not needed to stop mass shootings. Haskins writes this article to a varied and wide audience, all of the adults in the United States. Uniquely he appeals to an audience who may or may not agree with his pro gun stance, especially after this article was written. This article came at a decisive part of our nation’s history, right after a mass shooting. 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 that the data does not support stricter laws. He points out that if they did, states with stricter gun laws would be the safest from gun homicides. However, he cites a study from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence 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. (Haskins 2017)It’s logic implies that 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 he backs with facts. He cites  a Washington Post piece published in 2017 that finds that, despite having stricter gun laws in both the UK and Australia, their number of mass shootings has not gone down since they enacted those laws.(Haskins 2017) Haskins also logically points out that perhaps most importantly, gun control laws are not effective and restrict essential inalienable rights that belong to every American adult. Haskins goes on to say, “ After all if reducing gun violence is a good excuse for limiting gun rights then why not enact another Prohibition to stop alcohol-related deaths?(Haskins 2017)” 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? 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.

Haskins uses his appeal to authority or ethos to also make his case. He cites  sources from reliable institutions, and uses quotes from influential historical figures. The ethical arguments begin at the 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.” (Haskins 2017)He uses the quote from Benjamin Franklin to show us how important the American people’s liberty to keep and bear arms is. Trading 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. Libresco’s quote” Neither Nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans” (Haskins 2017)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 using 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 beginning where he states, “There’s literally no where in the United States in which a tragic mass shooting isn’t possible.”(Haskins 2017)  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. Through his logical facts from reliable sources, the quotes from influential historical figures and a subtle and passionate use of language Haskins makes his argument known. To not ban or take away guns, and to keep Americans safe. As his overall intended audience was older Americans, more likely to agree with him, his argument works well. His call to action is to have more people trained with firearms, to be less afraid, and to have a last line of defense to protect the weak and innocent. As he said in the beginning of his article, “There is literally nowhere in the United States in which a tragic mass shooting isn’t possible.”(Haskins 2017)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.

Work Cited

Haskins, Justin. “We Don’t Need Gun Control to Stop Mass Shootings.” Townhall, Townhall.com, 6 Nov. 2017, https://townhall.com/columnists/justinhaskins/2017/11/06/we-dont-need-gun-control-to-stop-mass-shootings-n2405286.

ACCEPT-to receive

EXCEPT-to take or leave out

I accept this award graciously from the judges.

The winners of the game were except from the record, as they had been caught cheating.

AFFECT-to influence

EFFECT-n., result, v., to accomplish

The affect I had on my brother did not become apparent for years.

The effect of, all the training I did with my brother, made him a champion.

LIE-to lie down (a person or animal. hint: people can tell lies)

LAY-to lay an object down

I lie down with my wife.

I laid the object upon the table.

Throughout the article the rhetorical strategies were implemented in many ways. Through his logical facts from reliable sources, the quotes from influential historical figures and a subtle and passionate use of language Haskins makes his argument known. To not ban or take away guns, and to keep Americans safe. As his overall intended audience was older Americans, more likely to agree with him, his argument works well. His call to action is to have more people trained with firearms, t be less afraid, and to have a last line of defense to protect the weak and innocent. As he said in the beginning of his article, “There is literally nowhere in the United States in which a tragic mass shooting isn’t possible.”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.

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.

Thesis: Using an array of logical facts, surveys and studies from reliable sources, and passionate language, Haskins makes his compelling case.

Topic 1: Using the rhetorical appeal to logos the article talks about the reasons to not use gun control.

Topic 2: Haskins uses his appeal to authority, or ethos, provided from his sources to make his case.

Topic 3: In the article the appeal to emotion is made, using passionate language and vivid descriptions, for a way to advocate for a less gun restricted America.

1.) Audience: Adults of any income, race, education, martial status or occupation. The only restriction is that the article is depending on the reader to be from the United States of America.

2.) The topic includes the audience in terms of their gun rights. What works foe the article is that a lot of the audinece is going to come in with a bias to agree with the article, and will find it educational. What works against is an equally vocal group is against what the article is advocating, and come in with a negative bias.

3.) They benefit from actually becomujng more informed on the topicc of gun control. Both forgein and domestic.

4.) People reading this are aware of the topic and are likely to come in with a bias. As disscussed before, that may be to a benefit or detriment to the article and arguemnt being made.

5.) The question regarding gun control. Does it work? Will it help? Are there any better alternatives? Is it perhpas even a bad thing to enact?

6.) In general they understand the topic as Americans, most of whom should be generally educated on the second amendment which is being put into question. The intended audience should be able to interpret and apply the information as needed.

The newest trend in the   2020 election is one we’ve heard before all the way back in 2016,  Socialism the newest hottest thing we should all be using. Well not everyone agrees. Some people have been arguing against it for years. One such person is Steven Crowder, who  in his video “Why Democratic socialism doesn’t work” released on March 31st 2016 argues through the use of the rhetorical arguments; ethos, pathos and logos on why democratic socialism doesn’t work. 

My strengths as a writer is my ability to articulate my ideas, and incorporate ideas, information, in a well timed way. I also can write very quickly and have a well versed vernacular which allows me to reinforce my previously mentioned strengths.

Question:What type of content are your top three posts (or most recent) on your timeline? Is this pretty typical for your timeline? What kinds of social groups/communities are you a part of? Compare what you see with what your peers see. Are there more similarities or differences?
Answer: My most recent three posts have been about dungeons and dragons and the old gameboy light system. It is pretty typical for me to have these kibnd of posts, I only use Facebook for nerd stuff. Nerd stuff in this contexts is meeting together for new games, try to play games, talk about the newest stuff in the gaming world, and memes. I am part of gaming communities, for both X-wing, Magic the Gathering and Dungeons and Dragons. My peers have a lot more posts about friends and crazy party life. I am the exact opposite.

Question:What is the relationship between what you see in your social media timeline and what you know or believe?
Answer: In social media I have more “friends” and I am far more witty in Gifs than I am with words.

Question: How does your social presence compare with the professional/student biography that you created?

Answer: Pretty much the same, except in my own personal social media I am far nerdier and far less conversational than I am in person.

Question: Where do you find examples of bias in your social media timelines?

Answer: I have a more leftist leaning bias in my social media as I am friends with many people who have differing opinions from me. I do this as to prevent living in an echo chamber.

Question: Who do I potentially influence on social media?

Answer: My family, friends, coworkers, and acquaintances. I influence how they think of me based off of what I talk about and what I share.

Question: Who do I engage with most on social media?

Answer: Mostly fellow nerds and people I know in real life, along with people in my gaming groups.

1.) God

2.) Faith

3.) Family

4.) Compassion

5.) Hard Work

6.) Mercy

7.) Forgivness

8.) Humor (ability to laugh at ones self)

9.) Liberty

10.) Happiness