Just Take Away Their Guns Analysis

In the New York Times article, “Just Take Away their Guns”, by U.C.L.A. professor and writer, James Q. Wilson, it is proposed that the United States government should focus on reducing the amount of illegal gun use on the streets in order to enhance the gun control system in America. Although the author provides a structured argument by exercising the use of logic through citations and reputable sources, he loses the audience due to his condescending and biased tone. He lacks effectiveness in certain aspects of the paper because although he properly uses logic, the ethics and pathos within the paper fall weak.
Wilson utilizes supporting evidence in paragraphs 2,3,4, and 7 such as criminologist Gary Kleck’s household study, (which proved that

guns were more likely to be used for defense purposes), in order to logically prove that the laws in effect now will not be enough to prevent the unlawful use of guns. He is correct by implying that legislation must improve harsher laws otherwise any person is granted an easy way out. It makes sense to suggest that a criminal should not be able to constantly “bargain” off some years from their sentence, because they would most likely be able to commit the same crime again. Essentially, by granting leniency the court is allowing these people to be set free and continue a cycle.
Wilson is able to reel in his audience by opening his introduction with, “the public is right.” He states, “It would take a Draconian, and politically impossible, confiscation of legally purchased guns to make much of a difference in the number used by criminals”. This tactic installs fear or heavy precaution, which sets up the public to get on board with his proposal of random street searches. The pathos he tries to exemplify here, although decent, becomes weak because his stance clearly is biased. The title, Just Take Their Guns Away, in itself clearly gives away what he sides on.
Wilson constantly mentions gang violence persuading the reader to unconsciously attribute violence to gangs only, which contradicts the household survey study performed by Gary Kleck. The point becomes unclear because he first tells the audience that most gun crimes are used in self-defense, more than they are used for burglaries and violent crimes, but then points the finger to gang violence being the problem. He repeatedly refers to people on the streets as well and claims, “When some people carry them on the streets, others carry them to protect themselves, and an urban race will be underway.” At first it sounds a bit generalized with whom he's pointing the finger at, but then concludes with, “Young black and Hispanic men will probably be stopped more often than older white Anglo men or women of any race.”
Wilson loses the strength of his pathos because he calls out two races with no evidence to support why these groups of people would be stopped more than others. It not only loses the interest of a reader whom may be African American or Latino, but it sounds unethical.
He ignores ethical reasoning referring to skin color and race without giving proper evidence and persuading the reader to assume that young black and Hispanics are responsible for the unlawful use of guns. It is also unethical to propose that officers be trained to pinpoint certain people for pat downs in the street just because of their look. It confuses me as to why this be suggested because that then violates a citizen’s rights. A person should not have to be searched if they are not visibly doing something to break the law.
James Q. Wilson builds up a good argument, but fails to fill in the open gaps within his paper. He states a clear logic that stays coherent throughout, but if read by the wrong audience, it does not stand strong enough alone without more supportive reasoning behind his ethical and emotional appeal.