You would think that the Columbine High School massacre would put an end to handing out semi-automatic guns without hesitation. You would think that having a President for eight years who proclaimed restrictions on gun carrying would put an end to the sale of semi-automatic guns without questioning. You would think that with a long history of deadly mass shootings, the US government would reform their gun laws. Unfortunately, the answer is no. Furthermore, with Trump as the new-elected President, people fear no changes will be made for the next four years - even though a majority of the American population wish for restrictions on gun availability. One of these people is Gregory Gibson, who has lost both his son and his sister to gun bullets. …show more content…
In the essay ‘’A Message From the Club No One Wants to Join’’ to the New York Times on Feb. 17, 2018, Gibson criticizes America’s non-existent gun regulation and tells us about his own personal experiences. The essay was published just a few days after yet another school shooting in the US. Gibson states that the main problem regarding America’s history with mass shootings is lack of change and lack of acknowledgement; politicians and media fail to realise that gun violence has become an increasingly important aspect of every-day-life for the average American: ‘’There’s a form to it now. It’s drama. It’s entertainment.’’(p. 2, l. 67). According to Gibson, our sense of reality has vanished and we no longer see gun violence as an awful thing like we’re supposed to. Instead, it has become an accepted part of reality that we apparently can’t change. Consequently, it has become an entertainment factor instead. Gibson blames the media for this. According to him, the way they present gun violence has changed the amount of respect and seriousness the average American views the issue with. They either give it a sense of normality or display it as momentarily hysteria: Either way, whenever a mass shooting happens, it is seen as one-time occurrence - not a part of a shocking picture that demands change. In some way, you could say that Gibson compares the media’s relationship with gun violence with the relationship we have with natural catastrophes; it is something we cannot predict, prevent nor change. Exactly this mind-set is the major point of criticism in Gibson’s essay: People are blind to the real horror of the problem. As a result of this, people forget about the problem and move on as soon as the so-called momentary hysteria has passed, which means potential solutions to the ever-growing problem are rarely proposed. To clarify his point, Gibson cleverly uses different modes of persuasion.
Already at the beginning of the article, Gibson establishes his position and knowledge concerning the gun violence problem by using ethos: ‘’My sister Wendy died by suicide with a gun and my son, Galen, was killed in a school shooting.’’(p. 1, l. 1 - 2). Right off the bat, Gibson manages to strengthen his ethos and trustworthiness: Because we are made aware of Gibson’s own personal experiences with the theme, we are inclined to trust and respect his opinion. In relation to this, pathos is also used: ‘’I know of a survivor who has a crime-scene photograph of her daughter’s bullet-riddled corpse. When she speaks with politicians about gun laws, she shows them the photograph. I have a similar photograph of my son. Perhaps the time has come to use it.’’(p. 2, l. 92 - 95). In this quote, both pathos and ethos is used. Gibson shows determination and initiative; while the subject of the article is clearly something very personal to him, he promises the reader that he will fight to change how to problem is currently being handled. By doing this, he establishes himself as a leading figure for the gun regulation movement, which makes him seem both trustworthy and knowledgeable. And, as it is Gibson’s own personal experiences he mainly builds his arguments upon, it is essential for him to make the reader sympathize with him and believe in him; a goal he pursues by using pathos. Especially other parents will …show more content…
become invested in the article whenever he, as shown in the previous quote, mentions children and how the current situation endangers them. We cannot help feeling sorry for the victims mentioned, giving the reader an emotional attachment to the subject. Gibson also uses logos: ‘’Polls tell us that more than 90 percent of people favour universal background checks, but a much smaller percentage actually do anything’’(p. 2, l. 76 - 78). This quote supports Gibson’s argument about how people will not change nor do anything to solve the problem. Clearly, this criticism is aimed at the politicians and the media; people who have the power to change the situation. Furthermore, as the article is very personal and subjective, logos is used to make Gibson’s argumentation reliable. Gibson also uses irony: ‘’Many of us belong to other survivor groups. There are quite a few in the Boston area to choose from. The only criterion for membership is, well, you know.’’(p. 1, l. 10 - 11). This is used to emphasize just how immense the problem has become, and is used to criticize how society and politicians have let it come this far. Gibson states that this is clearly a very serious issue that affects a large group of people. By hiding his criticism beneath a layer of irony, Gibson turns what would otherwise have been an extremely dark and serious article into interesting and provocative reading. The intention of the whole essay is to criticize the politicians and the media in the US.
Gibson thinks the media have normalized the problem instead of showing the severity of it. Only concerned with profit, they dramatize the subject in order to make money. Consequently, the average American gets a twisted image of the reality of the problem. In Gibson’s mind, this is extremely obnoxious and disrespectful to all the victims of gun violence; people who, like Gibson, have already suffered enough. Furthermore, the politicians, whose main objective should be to serve the people, turn their back on the victims and ignore the problem, running from their responsibility. Gibson’s article serves as a wake-up call to not only the media and the politicians, but also to the average American: If no one else wants to take charge and try to solve the issue, Gibson will do so himself. To do this, however, support is necessary. By establishing himself as someone familiar with the topic while also appealing to every American parent’s maternal instinct, Gibson is sure to reach his goals. By painting this personal, horrifying picture of how non-existent gun regulation affects American society, he is sure to instigate some debate about the topic – a debate Gibson hopes will finally lead to a real
solution.
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
There have been multiple incidents in American history alone that could have been avoided had existing gun regulation laws been enforced and monitored. Such incidents would include the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, the 2007 Virginia Tech Shooting, the 1997 Columbine High School shooting, and a 2011 shooting involving Congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords. All these incidents were caused by a lack of funding by the federal government for expanded background checks and a loophole in the current set of laws that allows guns to be sold...
Tragedy after tragedy, people find themselves mourning over the lives lost. And over and over again, they look back to see how they could have prevented it. People continue to argue and constantly debate what actions should be taken, and while doing so, more and more people lose their lives at the hands of gun violence. It’s clear to see that not much has been done to keep these weapons out of the wrongs hands: the shootings at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech have shown that. What would happen if there were to be another devastating shooting to occur? How would people react? Or would they just argue some more, while the wrong people can still easily get a hold of guns? The only way they can ever gain control of anything is by controlling the source of the problem, where people are able to freely purchase guns without restrictions. In order to reduce gun-related crime, unlicensed gun sellers should be required to run background checks on their customers.
April 20th, 1999, Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, experienced a mass shooting. Thirteen people were injured and more than twenty were injured. Twelve were students and one was a teacher. Two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold opened fire on their high school for forty one minutes before turning their guns on themselves and committing suicide. School shootings are notorious for making headline news but in 1999, school shooting were not as prevalent as they are in the present day. The media blew up on the catastrophe that was Columbine and many questions were raised, who were these kids and why did they do this? Speculation arose about why they did it. Maybe they were bullied for being goth and social outcasts or maybe they
As the generations of America’s youth continue to grow, so does the increase in violent crimes associated with each generation. Over the last decade, studies have shown that school shootings have increased by an astonishing 13%. Although this figure as a percentage does not seem like much, it makes one stop and think. Parents blame the video games and their violent behaviors for the influence on their children’s daily lives. Grandparents blame the child’s parents for not showing them the right way to grow up in the world. And then we have that child’s friends who say that this child just was not respected by their classmates, or perhaps even bullied into this violent nature. Regardless of the cause to this violent increase, many Americans do believe in a solution: gun control. Gun control is the situation in which the federal government would put a ban on owning firearms. Contrary to what many “hard-core” Americans believe, gun control would not necessarily ban them from owning hunting rifles or even personal handguns. It would simply limit the ownership of semi-automatic assault rifles, and other rifles of this nature. This does not contradict the Second Amendment of the Constitution which states that American citizens have the Right to Bear Arms. I believe in the constitutional Right to Bear Arms, and I am against any attempt to eradicate that right for any American citizen: however, I am for gun control in the sense of lowering the possession of semi-automatic and fully-automatic rifles.
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...
Aroung the time of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the controversial and widely argued issue of gun control sparked and set fire across America. In the past decade however, it has become one of the hottest topics in the nation. Due to many recent shootings, including the well known Sandy Hook Elementary school, Columbine High School, Aurora movie theater, and Virginia Tech, together totaling 87 deaths, many people are beginning to push for nationwide gun control. An article published in the Chicago Tribune by Illinois State Senator Jacqueline Collins, entitled “Gun Control is Long Overdue” voiced the opinion that in order for America to remain the land of the free, we must take action in the form of stricter gun laws. On the contrary, Kathleen Parker, a member of the Washington Post Writers Group whose articles have appeared in the Weekly Standard, Time, Town & Country, Cosmopolitan, and Fortune Small Business, gives a different opinion on the subject. Her article in The Oregonian “Gun Control Conversation Keeps Repeating” urges Americans to look at the cultural factors that create ...
“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.
A man by the name of Sean Faircloth, who is an author, an attorney, and a five-term state legislator from Maine; went against Sam Harris to give his own beliefs on the ordeal. Faircloth also wrote an article for The Week in response to Harris titled, “Why more guns won’t make us safer” in which he claims that Harris neglected the two largest problems involving gun-violence. Faircloth believes that Harris failed to acknowledge the substantial issue of gun-related domestic violence against women, and the success of gun-control legislation in foreign countries. Utilizing statistics, real world examples, and his own logic; Faircloth goes in depth with his core arguments. He wrote his article to dissuade the readers of Sam Harris’s article that “Why I own guns” lacks
Gun violence in the United States is higher than ever, and criminals with guns will “…kill as many as 1000 people each day” (Alpers&Wilson). Taking this into perspective, it is only right to fight fire with fire or, in this case, use a gun to protect yourself and those around you. Gun control does not only decrease the ability for protection, it also decreases our rights as U.S citizens. The constitution clearly states that we are given the right to bear arms, meaning we may carry fire arms. Even if we have stricter laws for guns, it will not stop killers from shooting innocent people. These men and women causing damage to the lives of numerous individuals do not care if there is a law banning guns, because all they truly want to do is hurt others. The pain citizens endure every day from losing a family member, friend, or even just a colleague is repulsive. These permanent deaths continue to make people fearful and it causes damage in their lives; unless something is done. Most people agree that action needs to be taken to stop this inhumane cruelty, but the question is; what can be done? Americans need protection, rights, and power to break this inexcusable gun violence circling America. Gun restrictions for trustworthy and reliable gun owners have not been proven to weaken gun violence in the United States; therefore, gun control should be limited because it is only hurting America, not helping it.
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.
Crime rate in the United States has been at an all-time high in the past few years. According to the Mass Shooting Tracker, there have been 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870. According to the gun violence archive, 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, and 26,819 people were injured. As you can see, 2015 was a big year with gun violence in the United States and since then nothing has changed, to this day we are still seeing these statistics for death by guns in the United States. Instead of the government focusing on gun control laws, I believe that they should look at different alternatives. Some of these alternatives could be to register citizens with aggressive mental disabilities and emotional instabilities and increase research for effective treatments and cures because in most of these cases the shooters have been found to have a mental disability. We can also abolish gun-free zones apart from schools, banks, mass transit hubs, hospitals, and government buildings so that concealed carry is legal in these zones. The government can enforce stricter punishments for crimes committed with a deadly weapon and more laws protecting citizens who are forced to use a firearm in self-defense. So, in the case of a civilian using
The conversation of gun control and gun regulation has been a great debate over the decades. NRA Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, in his speech on Newtown Shooting that occurred on December 21st, 2012, addresses the topic of gun control and argues that guns are not the cause of gun violence. LaPierre's project is to instead of gun control and decreasing the numbers of guns, increase the numbers of guns to solve the problem of gun violence. On the other side of debate, an American journalist, Nicholas Kristof, in his journal, "Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?" argues that guns are the cause of gun violence, but they should not be banned. Kristof's project is to regulate guns with many cautions. While these two authors have different arguments and projects, they use similar strategies to advance their claims. This paper will focus on the way each author strategically uses compare and contrast, cause and effect, and problem-solution to advance their claims and how effective these strategies are used.