On January 26, 2011, The Ithacan published an article titled “Government should create stricter gun laws” by Ithaca College senior, Megan Weintraut. This is an article arguing that the use of a gun by an average American citizen is not necessary and that the United States government should have more control over the use of guns by changing the laws. However, Weintraut’s argument is weak and is not persuasive.
This article’s audience is the entire population of American people. Gun violence is not an issue concentrated to one particular group. It can affect all Americans. Any person can read the article and take something away from it. But, the true intended audience is the US government. She is stating her opinion on why guns should be more regulated. The government is the only one with the power to change the culture surrounding unnecessary gun violence.
Weintraut’s occasion is in response to the recent shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords. This tragedy sparked outrage over the unnecessary use of guns. The article is written in an editorial form. There is no chance for somebody with an opposing viewpoint to dispute Weintraut’s claims. She is not trying to start a debate. She is just stating her opinion. The purpose of the article is to influence the reader’s opinions on gun control in hope to create the same feelings on the issue in the reader. Weintraut is for more gun control in America and in the article, she is sharing her views with her readers.
In her article, she states, “Guns have become decreasingly essential for personal survival. Why bother owning one?” (par. 2). Here is her claim and the first time she states her opinion on gun control. To back up her thesis, Weintraut uses all the rhetorical appeals: logos, ethos, and pathos. Logos, or logics, is primarily used. She is constantly giving non-debatable statistics and facts about gun violence. For example, she says “firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders and more than 90 percent of today’s gang-related homicides involve guns" (par. 3). She also says, “The American Academy of Family Physicians reported that 66 percent of television programs contain violence” (par. 4). All of her facts portray guns in a negative light.
In the fourth paragraph, Weintraut talks about violence in the media. This topic seems out of place compared to the rest of her article. Even though she makes good use of logos here, this paragraph is irrelevant. The majority of the article uses government laws and notable organizations as evidence to support her argument. She then spontaneously writes about how violence in the media results in a more violent youth. She is even so bold to say, “Through such an overdose of irresponsible violence in the media, today’s youth are becoming desensitized to the dangers of guns” (par. 4). After she writes this, she goes back to talking about laws and the government. This paragraph has nothing to do with the rest of her essay and is purposeless.
To go along with her facts, she uses ethos, or credibility. Her facts are backed up by credible sources such as state laws and The American Journal of Public Health. However, she herself, is not a credible source. Weintraut is a math major, not a lobbyist or even a politics major. The average reader may not see her as somebody with credentials notable enough to influence their viewpoints.
Most often, she uses pathos, or emotions. She conjures up sad emotions in the reader by bringing up tragedies such as the Columbine High School shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting, and the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords (par. 6). In addition, she awkwardly adds a Chris Rock joke at the end. This joke brought down the entire article. She is trying to make a point to some of her wittier readers. But, for an article that is supposed to create negative emotions towards guns, a joke spins the somber tone around and changes the mood of the article at the last moment.
Even though Weintruat uses up to date examples on why gun control should be stronger, her argument is amateur. She never talks about why some people are against the government regulating the use of guns. She only shares her side of the argument. If she acknowledged the opposing side of the argument, she could have showed a contrast between the two sides and then go on to explain why her view is right. This would have given the readers the fair chance to agree or disagree with her.
One of the main weaknesses of her argument is the fact that she doesn’t provide information that people who are familiar with the controversy did not already know. It seems that all of the arguments for more gun control will revert to the statement that “violence in the media causes kids to be more violent.” For many people, this is redundant. No new information was included in the article.
Weintraut’s article has some strong points but for every strong part, there is a weak point. She make very good use of pathos, but she also writes unnecessary paragraphs and does not really talk about any new statistics. If I was the US government or somebody who was anti-gun control, this article would not change my opinion on the issue.
Works Cited
Weintraut, Megan. "Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws | The Ithacan." The Ithacan. The Ithacan, 26 Jan. 2011. Web. 05 Feb. 2011.
You've done a nice job with this analysis. I'm a little confused by your discussion of opposing views. You say in the third paragraph that "There is no chance for somebody with an opposing viewpoint to dispute Weintraut’s claims," but aren't all claims arguable? Then, later, you say that Weintraut didn't utilize acknowledgement and response. This statement makes sense to me and is an important point, but it was hard for me to reconcile this statement with the previous one. In any case, overall this is a strong and purposeful analysis and an impressive portfolio.
ReplyDelete