Nicolas Kristof's Rhetorical Devices In Our Blind Spot About Guns

The general argument made by Paul Waldman in his work, “The Case For Banning Guns”, is that Paul Waldman believes that guns should be banned. More specifically, Paul Waldman believes that we should ban items that make guns more dangerous like bump stocks or devices that turn your semi-automatic gun into an automatic weapon. Paul Waldman writes, “No matter what legislation we might pass, even in liberal states that have increased restrictions in recent years, we won 't get anywhere near banning guns. In particular, we won 't address the biggest gun problem we have, which is not mass shootings but the daily carnage that claims around 90 Americans lives every day — and that means handguns, not military-style rifles or accessories like bump stocks. Precisely because we can 't start from scratch, all we can do is trim around the edges, try to find ways to reduce the unending slaughter a little bit here and a little bit there.”

The general argument made by Paul Waldman in his work, “The Case For Banning Guns,” is that gun control should be put into effect and certain firearms should be banned. More specifically, Waldman argues that abandoning these guns could decrease mass shootings and make America a much safer environment. He writes, “Yes, I’d like to ban guns. Almost all of them, at least the ones in private hands.” In this passage, Paul is suggesting that the United States would be much better off abandoning these weapons that leave communities with so much blood and gore.

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

“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

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.

As the ideal utilitarian approach focuses on the concept that the good will outweigh the bad, the good through gun control is easily identified through the way it will reduce the amount of violence as the restrictions of guns will reduce casualties. This has become the fundamental argument for the proponent camp where it is also seen how proponents argue the fact that “guns kill people” following cases of gun violence. As seen in the example of the cases that are ongoing in Baltimore, Maryland and Compton, California, these represents the clear fact that gun control is needed. The society will be a better place and it will be in the interest of the overall society for gun control to be needed. The clear advantages and good will be shown through the reduction of gun violence.

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

Regulating guns will not stop all of the killings that are occurring in America, and there are better ways to cease the killings than regulating guns. Body Paragraph One: Topic Sentence: Regulating mental health will be more effective in ceasing killings with guns than regulating guns. In an analysis provided, 22 percent of the perpetrators of 235 mass killing, could be considered mentally ill, many of which were carried out with firearms (Qui). Almost 25% of mass shooting killers are being considered mentally ill

He again says that although the solution isn’t perfect, it is another step towards resolving the issue, leaving the idea of improvements to gun control laws fresh in the audience's mind. Utilizing the rhetorical device of repetition, allows Obama to keep this idea in the audience's mind, with the goal of persuading the audience to come to terms with his idea of tightening gun control. In conclusion, by utilizing the rhetorical devices of the appeal of ethos and repetition, President Obama was able to deliver a strong speech on gun control, and achieve his goal of persuading individuals to join him on the road to strengthening laws on gun

On the issue of gun control, I had always thought along the lines of opposing or supporting the issue but had never thought that there could be another argument different from these two main ones that could be discussed. It was therefore quite refreshing to look at the issue from Novak’s point of view. The fact that he provided evidence to support his claim that law enforcement has worked before in reducing gun violence cases made his article all the more interesting and believable. He shows that the debate on gun control may just have been pointless all this time as the issue that should be discussed is really not whether people should have guns or not but rather how to enforce the law to ensure that perpetrators of gun violence are

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.

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.

This paper also provides an interesting solution to gun violence; instead of already proven ineffective gun control laws, these authors suggest looking at why these laws are ineffective. Planty, Michael, and Jennifer

Some people might say that we need a gun to protect ourselves in the United States, but there are actually various ways to protect ourselves instead of using a gun according to the article, “How Americans Protect Themselves from Crime.” Transition to Conclusion: before the government legislates about the gun control law, we need to be the spearhead that is awake to this problem deeply and carefully. Restate Thesis: I am convinced that the entire civilian should not own guns to prevent the gun violence, and only government officers must be able to own guns. Review Main Points: we realize that erroneous gun possession contributes to horrible gun accidents.

Everyday in the United States, ninety families are changed forever; guns claim an average of ninety lives every day in the United States, 33,000 lives in a single year. Gun control has been a debate in the United States for many years and is constantly thrusted back into the public’s attention by horrific shootings. These shootings constantly cause individuals to petition the government to place stricter and stricter regulations of guns. However, these policies cannot be the solution to this problem. To determine a solution that will be both effective and constitutional, we must look at statistics and research that has been conducted to determine the best course of action.