Adam Clark Estes ' article, "3D Printed Guns are Only Getting Better and Scarier," is a new controversial twist in the ongoing gun control debate (Estes). It is an emotionally written blog for the creation of laws to hinder the making of 3D guns. Estes is a senior writer on Gizmodo, which is a website blog that focuses on technology in society. While Estes ' article is informative, it lacks a strong thesis, organization and structure. The first main point the author addresses in this blog is how easy guns are to manufacture with a 3D printer. He explains this by referencing the history of the first home-made gun printed by Cody Wilson, a twenty-five year old student from the University of Texas. Another main topic Estes elaborates on is how …show more content…
Adam concludes this article by combining these two reasons and expressing the necessity for laws to be passed regulating these dangerous weapons. Throughout the article Estes briefly mentions the roadblocks the Constitution creates hindering the laws he thinks are necessary to discourage gun making. This article would have been better received by the readers if the author had a strong thesis and used pathos, logos, and ethos appeals appropriately. Estes ' article, "3D Printed Guns are Only Getting Better and Scarier," misuses emotional appeals and lacks credibility and logical support for the article 's weak thesis. Throughout the article, Estes ' uses highly emotional words that provoke feelings of fear and anger. Andrew McLurg, Professor of Law and author of The Rhetoric of Gun Control, writes, "Appeals to emotions are fallacious because emotions are irrelevant as a …show more content…
His introductory paragraph never states his thesis and contains contractions and assumptions. Also, there is no topic sentence introducing any of the paragraphs and the information is unorganized. As a result, there is no structure and flow with the article. The second paragraph contains sarcasm in the sentences, "Guns are dangerous. They kill people," which is also a logical fallacy. Another fallacy in this article is the use of hyperbole which is exaggeration and over-stating with certainty (McClurg 81). An example is when Estes overuses such words as nobody, surely, and always. As a result, the author 's ethos is compromised and that causes him to come across to his readers as unfair and distorting the facts ("The Three"). This could have been rectified if Estes presented some possible counter arguments to his claim, organized his article with a thesis, topic sentences, credible supporting facts, and a logical
In his article “Gun debate? What gun debate?” Mark O 'Mara discuses the controversial issue of gun control. O’Mara takes the tragic school shooting in Oregon as an opportunity to voice his opinion on the debate of guns. He clearly states his position and explains that gun violence has increased enormously because of the lack of command by the government and support from the public to speak out against it. O’Mara claims the issue is no longer a debate because it is so evident that guns have become a significant problem in this country and therefore actions must be taken to control and govern gun laws. In his article he attempts to raise awareness to the severity of the issue and tries to persuade his readers to take a stance against gun violence
Guns have possessed the spotlight of almost every news station. From the latest tragedy of a shooting killing innocent men, women and children to the arguments centering around if our gun laws possess strict enough qualities to keep our country safe. Charles C. W. Cooke, the author of “Gun-Control Dishonesty”, spreads his conservative view on the topic by ripping away any hope for a brighter day. Cooke’s main idea states that if nothing has happened to make gun law more strict even after the lives of innocent children were mercilessly ripped away from their young bodies than nothing should or could ever change. On the other hand, Adam Gopnik wrote his article, “Shooting”, uses a more liberal approach and inspires his audience to act upon the much needed change in our society
"Battleground America," written by Jill Lepore, provides a strong history of guns and the way they have changed in the eyes of the American through the years. She proves her point with strong evidence throughout her article, sprinkling it with opinion and argument that is strongly supported. She presents her argument to convince her audience that the open availability of guns allows citizens to undeservingly purchase them by displaying the credibility in her sources, using negative connotations in her speech, and the strength and objectivity only a strong logos appeal can provide.
James Q. Wilson does an outstanding job at persuading his reader in his essay, “Just Take Away Their Guns.” Wilson cleverly instills fear into the reader while still establishing common ground and remaining unbiased throughout the entire essay. Aside from the lack of sources for his statistical evidence, he applies an exceptional amount of logic to the entire argument, which made the essay a very persuasive
In this article the author Fawn Johnson gives us a brief look of what goes on during the great gun control debate. This article gives us a look at the gun control proposals, from American’s not bein...
The article “Guns are killing high school kids across America at alarming rates” begin by sharing a video of a message from a senior, Sam Zeif, who was a survivor of the Florida school shooting. In the video Sam started off by explaining how the emotions that was felt during the shooting, how regretful and worrisome Sam was for family members and friends. Then Sam continued with explaining the fear that tagged along with Sam and Sam’s friends after the school shooting, how unsafe Sam felt when going back to school or walking down a street. Then Sam shared a personal experience of seeing a man purchasing a deadly weapon with an expired ID in just five minutes. With the support of Sam’s deceased friend, who was killed during the school shooting,
Over the past five years Americans have seen many horrific tragedies related to gun violence. Each of these terrible events has been accompanied with scrutinizing media coverage, and subsequently, a push on government level for increased gun control. On the surface these movements to take away guns from Americans may seem justified because of these events. In reality the federal government is encroaching upon our Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of growing violence, rife with turmoil and crime, gun advocates feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the Free” possessing a gun is a fundamental right, and may even be a necessity... Anti- gun lobbyists point to the same growing violence and gun related crimes in an effort to call on the government to take action. By enacting more laws and stricter control, these people not in favor of guns feel society would be better safer.
An estimated 30,000 people are killed each year by guns in the United States alone according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s). Though there have been some restrictions and laws placed, both the conservative and liberal sides are not pleased with either the lack of action or the fact that there has been too much action that has taken place. “About 38% of U.S. households and 26% of individuals owned at least one gun, with about half of the individuals having 4 or more guns, according to a 2004 survey by the Harvard School of Public Health (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s).” Both sides turn to the one document centered on the argument for evidence to support their side: the Second Amendment.
Banks, James. "Gun Control Debate: The Argument That Every Gun Owner Needs To Start Making." PolicyMic. N.p., 6 Nov. 2013. Web. 8 Jan. 2014. .
In his article “Our Blind Spot about Guns,” Nicholas Kristof argues for making guns safer for the people who use them by bringing up the comparison of guns to cars; “Cars don’t kill people. People kill people,” (261). Kristof’s purpose is to address the fact that guns are not as safe as they should be and are the cause of thousands of deaths each year. Although his ideas for increasing gun safety are interesting, there is a shortcoming in the comparisons he used. In order to make a stronger argument, one must use literary devices. In this case, Kristof used ethos, pathos, logos, and additional rhetorical devices.
“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns. (Obama)” This said prior to Obama’s presidency, in the 1990’s, is still a topic that is constantly questioned today. Many American’s feel the need to seek ownership of weapons as a source of protection; While others believe that private ownership of guns will do nothing more but heighten the rate of violence due to people taking matters into his or her own hands. Philosophy professor Jeff McMahan agrees with Obama’s statement in regard to the ownership of guns. In his New York Times editorial titled “When Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough,” McMahan provides evidence to support his theory of the dangers that quickly follow when allowing the community to own guns legally. McMahan, throughout the text, shows responsible reasoning and allows the reader the opportunity to obtain full understanding and justifies his beliefs properly.
The issue of gun control has always been a hot topic among the American public. Most everyone, if asked, will tell you that gun control is an issue needed to be dealt with because of the event that took place at Columbine High School back on April 20th, 1999. The American public has been wrestling with gun control long before then. If we take a look back at August 1st, 1966 at the University of Texas, a man armed with a hunting rifle committed one of the most violent mass murders in history. Gun control refers to the Government placing restrictions on the American public to buy, own and sell firearms. If we read the constitution, our second amendment right is the right to bear arms. This has been the ongoing controversy of this issue. We the people say our constitutional right to buy and own firearms is being seized from us. The government is using our society’s violent incidents as cover to place restrictions and bans on firearms. This essay’s purpose is to provide proof that buying and owning firearms is our legal constitutional right and that our government is trying to attack the wrong angle when trying to fight crime involving guns in the United States.
He incorporates several tense explanations of this issue in order to evoke pity and sadness within his readers. Kristof says, “In America, more preschoolers are shot dead each year (82 in 2013) than police officers are in the line of duty (27 in 2013), according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI.” By including this harsh statistic, it effectively supports his argument and its seriousness. Kristof continues to fill his article with emotionally-charged phrases and statistics such as the comparison between civil war deaths and gun deaths. Cold hard facts really paint a picture for the reader, being that one may be shocked to read how gun deaths have impacted our world
The Crux,. 'If You Believe In "Gun Control," This Is Probably Not For You... '. N.p., 2014. Web. 30 Oct.