A Noble Sacrifice For The Right To Kill Mike Ryoko Analysis

Finally, “A Noble Sacrifice for the right to bear AK-47s,” is the worst article of the four. Mike Ryoko, the author, deserves maybe a $500 bonus, if that. His essay is loaded with fallacies that undermine every point he tries to make. Not only that, but his examples are absurd and the central argument has no concrete evidence to back it up. His article is possibly satire. He has no sympathy for the victims of the California shooting and is opinionated throughout the entire article. In paragraph six those who support gun control are addressed as “nattering nabobs,” by Ryoko. This is an example of ad hominem where Ryoko is attacking the opposition rather than addressing the problem at hand. Instead of saying why assault weapons should be legal, Ryoko resorts to calling the opposition names. Another fallacy occurs in paragraph twelve. Ryoko writes, “After the rifle is banned, then they’ll get the shotgun and the pistol and the slingshot. After that it will be the hunting knife, the pocket knife, the hat pin.” Although Ryoko makes great use of polysyndeton and asyndeton, his logic does not follow, nor would banning the assault rifle trigger the banning of pocket knives. Therefore, this is an example of non sequitur and slippery slope.

In paragraph eight, he provides a hypothetical example about why toting AK-47s around is a good thing. However, this example involves an average citizen fighting a force of trained Russian and Cuban soldiers. Not only would this U.S. man be severely outnumbered but he would lack the training to even stand a chance against trained military personnel. Furthermore, the odds of an invading, nation, reaching U.S. shores without the knowledge of our government are highly improbable. All these factors contribute to discrediting Ryoko’s hypothetical