The Gun Control Debate
In the editorial “After Aurora” the author, who remains anonymous, takes on the widely debated issue of gun control. In this particular article the author gives us a look into some of his beliefs. The author believes that the right to bear arms needs to be subject to some limitations. While his beliefs are somewhat credible, and his ideas may be good, he does a poor job of trying to persuade the audience. In fact, it sees as though the author is addressing an audience that he assumes already agrees with him. The author’s failure to establish credibility, lack of organization, and the lack of strong facts and evidence makes for a weak argument.
In the book, A Writer’s Reference, Hacker and Sommers (2011) explained “in the sentences leading up to the thesis,
establish your credibility with the readers by showing that you are knowledgeable and fair-minded” (p. 80). We see in the sentences leading up to his thesis the author is ranting and does not establish his credibility with his audience. In doing this, the author leaves himself somewhat discredited, and he does not present himself as knowledgeable on this issue. Hacker and Sommers (2011) also suggested “if possible, build common ground with readers who may not at first agree with your views and show them why they should consider your thesis” (p. 80). The author fails to build common ground with his audience in the sentences leading up to his thesis, which also diminishes his credibility.
The author’s lack of organization and structure in this article makes it difficult to read and leaves his main point unclear. He opened up the article by referencing the recent shooting in Aurora, Colorado, where James Holmes entered a packed movie theater and opened fire, killing twelve people (“After Aurora”, 2012). We see that the author used this incident to show that gun control is an issue that we do not often hear about or discuss until the aftermath of a shooting. He then proceeded to inform the audience about the ease of stockpiling guns without anyone noticing (“After Aurora”, 2012). The writer does not deliver a clear point or a thesis in this article until the bottom of the second paragraph, where the author of “After Aurora” (2012) declared that “Constitutional rights like freedom of speech, press and assembly are subject tolimits, and so should the right to be armed.” Adding to the confusion of this article, the writer continued into a second argument. Although it is relatedand maybe undetected at first, he presents a separate argument when, in the article “After Aurora” (2012) he stated “thus society allows individuals to build an armory, heedless of the rights of all Americans to live in safety.” Inessence, what the writer is saying here is that we as a society view the right of an individual to own a gun as more important than the right of society to live in peace. Although he may have a valid point here, maybe he should havemade a second article out of this second thesis statement because this statement, as well as the paragraphs that follow, does not support his original thesis.
The overall formation and structure of the article, as well as his thoughts are scattered. First off, he talked about some incidents of gun crime, which does give some support to the case that something needs to be done to control how easily an individual can quietly acquire weapons; however, the author fails to capitalize on this. He speaks briefly of the incidents and moves on. He then looks briefly at the political scene of this issue by summarizing some current politicians, and individual states’ gun control policies, which does not offer support for his argument. He also touched briefly on civil rights, but at no point does he ever build a solid argument for his case using these topics. He then continues into his second argument without expanding on or proving his first point. This leaves any readers who may have been considering his view without any foundation to convince them of his beliefs.
As human beings we are difficult to persuade; we are stubborn and are set in our ways, especially if we already have an established belief on an issue or topic. The best way to persuade someone is through examples or better yet undisputable facts. Hacker and Sommers (2011) wrote “writers often use statistics in selective ways to bolster their own positions”(p. 83). This is another area where the author builds a weak argument in this article. He does not give any facts to back up his point in any way. He does not present any statistics or any records that would help prove that gun control actually does work or is working in a particular situation. There are countries such as Australia, that have strict gun control laws, and there are statistics he may have been able to use if he had done the proper research. He does give some examples or proposals such as implementing a system of licensing or registration. Such systems could potentially diminish gun crimes, if they were implemented, but once again he does not provide any statistics or facts that would prove that these proposals actually make a difference. These proposals are not enough to make an impact on a reader’s opinion. He tries to give evidence of a situation where control does work when he compares guns to cars. Yes, cars are dangerous, and unfortunately, they do cause fatalities, but the writer pointed out, there are systems of registration and licensing, as well as liability insurance on cars. These systems allow the government to keep track of vehicles and hold the owner responsible. The writer is implying that a similar system should be implemented on firearms. This may be his best point of the article, but still it does not help prove that gun control is necessary. This analogy shows some ideas of how to hold gun owners responsible, but it does not provide examples or evidence of how it helps prevent crimes. Therefore the argument is flawed and ineffective in persuading a skeptical reader.
Throughout this editorial, the author has done a poor job of persuading the readers to join his cause in pro gun control. If someone is trying to persuade an audience, this usually means that audience’s opinion differs from theirs; we often call this an argument. In order to have an argument there must be two opposing views. It seems as though this was really not much of an argument at all. Rather than trying to effectively prove why gun control needs to be strictly enforced, the author simply states his belief that gun control does need to be stricter. His targeted audience seems to be those who are in agreement with him.Also, this article’s overall lack of structure and organization makes it difficult for a reader to follow and understand. A reader can easily lose the focus of the article; the author’s thoughts are scattered and random. Lastly, the lack of evidence and support leave the reader with too many unknowns. The writer does present some ideas that may cause a reader to think, but there are no facts or evidence to make a strong case for gun control. In order to build a persuasive argument and remove any doubt from the reader’s mind, the writer needs to incorporate more facts and evidence to support his point.
References
After Aurora [Editorial]. (2012). America, 207, 5. Retrieved from http://americamagazine.org
Hacker, D., & Sommers, N. (2011). A Writer’s Reference (7thed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
In the book, A Writer’s Reference, Hacker and Sommers (2011) explained “in the sentences leading up to the thesis,
establish your credibility with the readers by showing that you are knowledgeable and fair-minded” (p. 80). We see in the sentences leading up to his thesis the author is ranting and does not establish his credibility with his audience. In doing this, the author leaves himself somewhat discredited, and he does not present himself as knowledgeable on this issue. Hacker and Sommers (2011) also suggested “if possible, build common ground with readers who may not at first agree with your views and show them why they should consider your thesis” (p. 80). The author fails to build common ground with his audience in the sentences leading up to his thesis, which also diminishes his credibility.
The author’s lack of organization and structure in this article makes it difficult to read and leaves his main point unclear. He opened up the article by referencing the recent shooting in Aurora, Colorado, where James Holmes entered a packed movie theater and opened fire, killing twelve people (“After Aurora”, 2012). We see that the author used this incident to show that gun control is an issue that we do not often hear about or discuss until the aftermath of a shooting. He then proceeded to inform the audience about the ease of stockpiling guns without anyone noticing (“After Aurora”, 2012). The writer does not deliver a clear point or a thesis in this article until the bottom of the second paragraph, where the author of “After Aurora” (2012) declared that “Constitutional rights like freedom of speech, press and assembly are subject tolimits, and so should the right to be armed.” Adding to the confusion of this article, the writer continued into a second argument. Although it is relatedand maybe undetected at first, he presents a separate argument when, in the article “After Aurora” (2012) he stated “thus society allows individuals to build an armory, heedless of the rights of all Americans to live in safety.” Inessence, what the writer is saying here is that we as a society view the right of an individual to own a gun as more important than the right of society to live in peace. Although he may have a valid point here, maybe he should havemade a second article out of this second thesis statement because this statement, as well as the paragraphs that follow, does not support his original thesis.
The overall formation and structure of the article, as well as his thoughts are scattered. First off, he talked about some incidents of gun crime, which does give some support to the case that something needs to be done to control how easily an individual can quietly acquire weapons; however, the author fails to capitalize on this. He speaks briefly of the incidents and moves on. He then looks briefly at the political scene of this issue by summarizing some current politicians, and individual states’ gun control policies, which does not offer support for his argument. He also touched briefly on civil rights, but at no point does he ever build a solid argument for his case using these topics. He then continues into his second argument without expanding on or proving his first point. This leaves any readers who may have been considering his view without any foundation to convince them of his beliefs.
As human beings we are difficult to persuade; we are stubborn and are set in our ways, especially if we already have an established belief on an issue or topic. The best way to persuade someone is through examples or better yet undisputable facts. Hacker and Sommers (2011) wrote “writers often use statistics in selective ways to bolster their own positions”(p. 83). This is another area where the author builds a weak argument in this article. He does not give any facts to back up his point in any way. He does not present any statistics or any records that would help prove that gun control actually does work or is working in a particular situation. There are countries such as Australia, that have strict gun control laws, and there are statistics he may have been able to use if he had done the proper research. He does give some examples or proposals such as implementing a system of licensing or registration. Such systems could potentially diminish gun crimes, if they were implemented, but once again he does not provide any statistics or facts that would prove that these proposals actually make a difference. These proposals are not enough to make an impact on a reader’s opinion. He tries to give evidence of a situation where control does work when he compares guns to cars. Yes, cars are dangerous, and unfortunately, they do cause fatalities, but the writer pointed out, there are systems of registration and licensing, as well as liability insurance on cars. These systems allow the government to keep track of vehicles and hold the owner responsible. The writer is implying that a similar system should be implemented on firearms. This may be his best point of the article, but still it does not help prove that gun control is necessary. This analogy shows some ideas of how to hold gun owners responsible, but it does not provide examples or evidence of how it helps prevent crimes. Therefore the argument is flawed and ineffective in persuading a skeptical reader.
Throughout this editorial, the author has done a poor job of persuading the readers to join his cause in pro gun control. If someone is trying to persuade an audience, this usually means that audience’s opinion differs from theirs; we often call this an argument. In order to have an argument there must be two opposing views. It seems as though this was really not much of an argument at all. Rather than trying to effectively prove why gun control needs to be strictly enforced, the author simply states his belief that gun control does need to be stricter. His targeted audience seems to be those who are in agreement with him.Also, this article’s overall lack of structure and organization makes it difficult for a reader to follow and understand. A reader can easily lose the focus of the article; the author’s thoughts are scattered and random. Lastly, the lack of evidence and support leave the reader with too many unknowns. The writer does present some ideas that may cause a reader to think, but there are no facts or evidence to make a strong case for gun control. In order to build a persuasive argument and remove any doubt from the reader’s mind, the writer needs to incorporate more facts and evidence to support his point.
References
After Aurora [Editorial]. (2012). America, 207, 5. Retrieved from http://americamagazine.org
Hacker, D., & Sommers, N. (2011). A Writer’s Reference (7thed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.