A Rhetorical Analysis Of Shootings, By Adam Gopnik

Adam Gopnik’s article “shootings” (2007), in the beginning explained the children that have been shot, and their cellphones have been ringing, getting calls from their worried families. With the author starting off like this, it made readers want to continue reading to know how the shooting happened, the author hooked the readers in. He talked about various gun laws and gun control later on and the misuse of gun violence. The author's point of view is that gun violence is addressed more seriously in other countries with the same situation. He is trying to persuade the reader with his style of writing, providing the reader with information about the shooting in Virginia Tech. The writer is concerned about the issue and he is informing us that Americans do not regard gun control as a serious matter as other countries do. He argues about how a dangerous weapon like a gun is if it comes in the wrong hands. Without any further restrictions, guns are available for mostly everyone who wants to have it, guns are dangerous and no one needs to have a possession of it. This is a persuasive essay

because the author is making it aware that the use of guns in America should be stopped and innocent people shouldn’t be dying because of one madman with this dangerous weapon. Showing people that there is no need for guns because throughout history they have only brought many wrong decisions that happened in real life dramatic events all over the world.
This essay is written formally because the story is told from a perspective, explaining the consequences behind the use of guns in America.

Not one specific person is telling the story it is told from many different perspectives. This piece of writing informs or persuades its audience to stop the use of guns. In this essay, the author states and pushes upon the wrongness of gun use and how it should be stopped. the author explains that the Virgina governors and all-American law makers, rather ignore the cause of this violence and further move on from it. Within his examples of other shootings, Gopnik makes it very clear that restrictive gun controls have stopped the number of mass murder killings and/or violence within the country. Lastly, he repeatedly explains the consequences about the point of law making, and he is precise when he states that law making should be about

prevention.
He is aiming for the attention of political leaders, the government, and any other readers with the power to change gun control laws. Adams implied audience is the world and anyone who cares to listen to an important topic. He speaks to mainly anyone who can make a change. Gopnik may also have been targeting the parents of students or teachers with children, as they would be better able to empathize with the parents’ emotions. This essay fulfills its aim because the author is intending to achieve this reasoning to why gun violence should be stopped in America. His strengths in this essay is how he captures your interest with emotion. He uses many examples of similar and catastrophic events in the world and he is certain that gun control would eliminate violence it can reduce killings/violence. He also doesn’t hold back on the realities that there are violent people all over the world. His only weakness is in his final argument when he states that rural America is a hunting country, is oddly thrown into the mix. He’s being sarcastic that “we have to live with this” rather than extending his thought that Americans think guns are there rights and freedoms they don’t see it as a danger when other countries do something about these massive criminal events.