Rhetorical Analysis Of Gun Control Kills By Jack Hunter

“I’m willing to meet my creator and answer for every shot that I took…” (www.imdb.com). Kyle, in the movie American Sniper, says these exact words for a reason. Matt Taibbi, who wrote American Sniper Is Almost Too Dumb To Criticize, had a reason why he structured and presented the article the way he did. There was a purpose to everything he did. Not only does Taibbi present his information in a specific way, Matt wants a specific group of people to read his article and agree with his arguments that he is making.

Gun control is a law in which determines how firearms are used, sold and who have the right to use them. There are statistics that show how most of the population of a country is in favor of owning a firearm for self-defense. In my opinion, gun control should be enforced because it will make us safer and would reduce crimes. If people use guns as self-defense then they would increase the homicide rate.

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

Rhetoric of Gun Control and Gun Rights Arguments Throughout “On the Rhetoric of Second Amendment Remedies”, Brett Lunceford portrays the effects of speakers who use violent rhetoric in their speeches against gun control. Lunceford scrutinizes the rhetorical strategies used by those speakers and how they tie into their means of persuasion. He examines the harmful effects of using certain persuasive techniques on Americans. He focuses primarily on two gun-rights advocates and their use of violent rhetoric.

In another view, many of those who are on the board of having guns have limited reasoning. Winkler even states “On the Other hand , gun advocates are too quick to assume that laws allowing guns on campus will discourage mass murderers.” Even in Arizona, which was an example in the article, it had passed a liberal carrying law, and with that, there was still a shooting of a man hurting a representative and killing six other people along with it. This remark goes back to the last paragraph and how it could make a setting bitter and uncomfortable instead of having people feel safer because they would be able to “fight back”. Also in a shooting that could happen at a school people could have a gun on them and still would not be able to protect himself, but also can shoot a bystander because they could have thought it was the shooter.

In this article they discuss the pros and cons about the gun legislation. As the article says some of the pros can be the safety of the people. Some of the cons can be that it violates or it depreives them the right of the people to bare arms. There is no potential bias as the article gives the two points of views. This article can be helpful as evidence for my argument as well as the opposing argument since it shows the two points of

The aforementioned article describes the debate occurring regarding the Texas massacre and the gun violence associated with it. 26 people were killed in the shooting, however the perpetrator himself soon became one of the many victims of a fatal gunshot wound and soon killed himself after being chased down. The population seems to have reached a divide where they are unsure whether this adds to or takes away from the constitution of the right to own guns. President Donald Trump claimed that the act was the work of a disabled man and that if Devin Patrick Kelley, the perpetrator, had not been shot, there would have been many more casualties. Meanwhile, those who oppose the second amendment persist in using this situation to dispute gun rights,

“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

Ryan McMaken writes about how gun control is not the proper way to deal with gun control in his article “Gun Control Fails: What Happened in England, Ireland, and Canada.” McMaken writes both about how the homicide rates between countries may be askew and about how gun control has failed to affect crime rates in countries that strictly enforce it. McMaken writes about how different countries track homicide rates and how these different collection rates skew the results and if all the countries collected these numbers in the same way the comparisons would be much different. McMaken states, “there is always a fundamental problem with comparing different countries that may employ different methods of collecting data on homicides and processing the data” (McMaken 2). McMaken goes on to explain what the homicide rate would look like in the United States if it were collected in the same way that other countries did.

Grifin M. Price Kendra Gallos English III H 3/21/18 Gun Control Will Not Solve Anything Guns are given a bad reputation because of the terrors that can be committed by people who want to cause harm. Those who are gun control advocates wish to ban certain weapons without basis, ban certain weapon attachments, and restrict the rights of the second amendment. Gun control supporters base their opinion on statistics about gun violence that use a portion of data that is not about gun violence just to boost the value of the number.

Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Many believe this, but columnist Nicholas Kristof, author of “Our Blind Spot about Guns,” published in 2014 in the New York Times, disagrees. A rhetorical analysis should consist of: logos, pathos, and ethos. Kristof’s use of logos is strong due to the amount of facts and statistics he offers to his audience, but he fails to strongly use pathos and ethos, due to the lack of these elements Kristof’s argument is weakened.

The essay “Shootings” fits the argumentation category when the author provides examples of fatal gun shootings that have occurred around the world in which the author is trying to convenience the reader that assault weapons lead to gun violence. In the essay, the author provides the readers with a very visual and descriptive hook, “the cell phones in the pockets of the dead students were still ringing… (pg. 674).” In addition, evidence is also another argumentative concept that the author provides. The author, Gopnik, provides factual supporting evidence on a case, “in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, a gunman killed sixteen children and a teacher at their school (pg.675).” However, Gopnik provides refutation in the essay by stating, “rural

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

In the article it also says that most killers are dealing with mental problems or illnesses. A gun range owner, Scott Ostrosky says, “A gun did not kill those children. A

The media’s main points are that we need to either get rid of guns completely or at least put more restrictions on them. Here are some statistics to show why this would be a bad idea. There are 45 guns to every 100 people in Switzerland. That is the fourth highest gun ownership rate in the world. The country has one of the world’s lowest homicide rates.”