Rhetorical Analysis: Harper-Mercer

On October 1st, 2015 Christopher Harper-Mercer went on a shooting spree at Umpqua Community College, killing nine people in the process. Since the shooting, Harper-Mercer’s father, Ian Mercer, has spoken out, stressing the need for more gun legislation. In the article written by The New York Times, Jack Healy and Laura M. Holson present Mercer’s claim that stricter gun control is necessary. In an attempt to make Mercer’s claim effective, Healy and Holson present emotionally charged anecdotes from the shooting, emphasize Mercer’s pleading tone, and use factual information from the shooting to legitimize Mercer’s point.

Throughout the article, Healy and Holson use pathos so that their readers can connect to the piece, and so that the audience can accept or reject Mercer’s claim. To craft pathos, the authors rely heavily on anecdotes from the victims of the shooting’s families. In one instance, Healy and Holson introduce the story of Cheyeanne Fitzgerald, one of the victims of the shooting; by having her mother and aunt present the horrific details. “Tears welled up in her eyes as she explained

that bullet had clipped her daughter’s lung and lodged in one of her kidneys, which had to be removed,” (Healy, Holson 3). Additionally, her mother mentions her daughter’s emotional struggle post-shooting by saying that though Cheyeanne has begun to talk about the situation, subtle movements like the movement of a chair frighten her (Healy, Holson 3). Healy and Holson use the anecdotes to create a shock factor and to create an overwhelming feeling of sympathy for those who were affected by the tragedy. These emotional appeals connect back to Mercer’s claim because the anecdotes highlight the negative effects that come with lack gun regulation, and enforce the idea that stricter legislation would be a good thing for the nation.
Even though Ian Mercer’s son was the shooter, it is no surprise that he feels compelled to condemn the actions of a murderer. In his statement, Mercer tries to humanize the event in an attempt to get people to react, and in an attempt to get his audience to call for change; to do so, Ian Mercer uses a pleading tone. On page two he says, “It has to change.” By asserting the fact that he wants things to change he comes off as pleading. “But we’re not alone in this,” he said. “My heart goes out to all the families that were affected,” (Healy, Holson 2). Mercer’s emotional plea for stronger regulation and his use of the affected families shows that he is trying desperately to make his voice heard. Mercer is attempting to craft an outcry and uses his pleading tone to make his claim more effective.
In addition to drawing on emotional appeals, Healy and Holson use factual information, logos, to strengthen Mercer’s claim.

To establish background information on why Ian Mercer is claiming that stricter gun regulation is needed, Healy and Holson inform the readers that Mr. Harper-Mercer had fourteen guns, thirteen of which were used to kill ten people and injure eight more (Healy and Holson 1-2). These guns had the sole purpose of killing innocent people and all of them were legally purchased according to page two (Healy and Holson). Traditionally, mass murders are completed with the use of illegal firearms, but the shooting in Oregon was carried out by legally purchased weapons. The facts presented about the shooting force the American public to reevaluate the gun control debate, and the gruesome details help to persuade the readers to agree with Ian Mercer’s

claim.
Broadcasted throughout the media are tales of frequent shootings happening across America, a first world, and supposedly safe country. The shooting at the community college in Oregon is not the first school shooting in America, and Ian Mercer argues, in an effective argument, that if gun legislation isn’t reformed more mass shootings will occur. To support his claim Healy and Holson, the article’s authors, present anecdotes from the family of one of the shooting victims. This appeal humanizes the situation, assists the audience in understanding why this issue is worth discussing, and it also enables the ability to understand why Ian Mercer is stressing the importance of his claim. Additionally, Ian Mercer uses a pleading tone to emphasize the pertinence of his argument. By pleading and by humanizing the situation, the article attempts to create an outcry for legislation reform. The article uses emotionally charged rhetorical devices in order for the readers to feel sympathetic, angry, and motived to make a change. Although emotional appeals are the most prevalent, Healy and Holson use facts from the shooting to legitimize the reader’s feelings they received from reading the plea of Ian Mercer and from the heart-wrenching anecdotes. Overall, Healy and Holson assist Mercer in creating an effective argument that stresses the importance of reforming and or crafting stricter gun regulation by humanizing the shooting with anecdotes, emphasizing Mercer’s pleading tone, and by presenting facts about the shooting.