This paper will critique the Persuasive Speech Gun Control by Sergeant Steve Cheatham published on April 2, 2011. Sgt. Cheatham started the speech by using a current event at the time that involved a public shooting. By using this incident to start his speech he grabbed the audience’s attention as the incident had national attention at the time. The audience members could conjure up their own feelings of how that incident affected them and their position on gun laws and gun rights. The purpose of the speech emphasizes this is a learning opportunity for the audience –"Currently the President of the United States is pushing for more gun control in the wake of the shooting. And we as Americans are allowing this to happen.” (0.07). With this …show more content…
thesis statement, Sgt. Cheatham states his goal in a clear manner, and created structure around his topic. Since Sgt. Cheatham’s primary message is one that usually brings about a heated debate it is likely that some in his audience would not see the underlying message however he manages to bring his message to the forefront quickly. A quarter of the way through the speech, Sgt.
Cheatham makes the first connection to the audience and his topic. He states -"We must have the right to protect ourselves… Our Government is trying to remove those rights” (3:26). He makes the audience focus on the point that we all have rights, and that we must not allow the government to take them from us. He makes his massage personal to the audience by noting these are everyone’s rights, not just his rights. He persuades his audience repeatedly referencing "Our rights” which in turn translates to the audience as "my right”. His speech is imploring the audience to use logic not emotion when discussing gun rights. He provokes the reality that even though we do live in a great nation, we are not beyond being attacked. In addition to not only being our right but our duty to get involved so that we may protect …show more content…
ourselves. Sgt. Cheatham’s speech is also very strong in both credibility (ethos), and logical argument (logos). He builds his credibility in a number of ways, first just by being in the military given that in of its self shows that he knows firsthand what could happen if we are attacked and unarmed. In addition to his military training at the end of his video he thanks his classmates and professor for the feedback. This shows he is not uneducated or regurgitating what the media has fed him. Sgt. Cheatham’s logical arguments are - "We must learn what our rights are….Not to think emotionally but cognitively….Evil lurks when good people do nothing” (2:52). These statements are clearly the most powerful in the entire speech. With the second statement, Sgt. Cheatham addresses specifically the opposing view, and then offers an example of what will happen if we let our emotions get in the way. Sgt.
Cheatham could have increased the lighting in the room he selected for his speech, as it was a bit hard to see him. He kept his gestures and movements to a small area but the room he used gave him more room to move which he did not take advantage of. Even though he did not take advantage of his space, his body language and his gestures throughout the speech are excellent. As he gives his presentation it is apparent that his military training helps him give the audience the sense that the information he is giving is straight forward and forthright. I would have liked to see Sgt. Cheatham use visual aids for his speech, possibly a PowerPoint presentation, a chart, or a projector could have been used. The, vocal assortment he projects is one of authority and pride for the nation we live in. He uses mixture of cadence, stress, and volume well for the size of the room. This aids in conveying his convictions and enthusiasm, but it also helps in adding drama throughout the speech and brings about
understanding
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
By appealing to several different views, Wheeler is able to grab every reader’s attention. Using schools as his focus point grabs the reader’s attention on a personal level. A school is a place where your children, your friends, your spouses all could be, and we still aren’t motivated to change our gun control laws. Tragic events do not have to happen like those that occurred at Virginia Tech, The Jewish Day care in Los Angeles, and Pearl High School. Wheeler believes concealed carry should be allowed in every school. Let’s make the students and teachers of these schools and colleges their own heroes. Wheeler says we must embrace all of the varied disciplines contributing to preparedness and response. We must become more willing to be guided and informed of empirical finding. School officials base policies on irrational fears. Wheeler states, “What is actually worse, the fear of what we think might happen, or the massacres that actually did occur?” Wheelers essay is very well thought out and uses fear, credibility, and factual evidence to support his beliefs. My belief is we should allow teachers and students to have guns at schools, as long as they have gone through training to do
When the professor Greg Hampikian decided to write “When may I shoot a student” He was trying express his own opinion to the Idaho State Legislature about the bill that allows for guns to be on the college campus of Boise State University. Greg tells us why he thinks this bill is really not needed by saying “I think we can all agree that guns don’t kill people, people with guns do.” He goes on to make many different examples of how the bill might be misunderstood and why it would be pointless to add the bill that will allow people to have a gun on campus. Greg is wanting to know why the Idaho State Legislature would create a problem when there is not a problem in the first place. Greg goes on being ironic when he is pointing out that the only crime on the campus is when students cheat on a test or experiment with drugs, he even go as far to say that the campus has a murder rate of zero.
He mentions the very recent violence that occurred in Selma, Alabama; where African Americans were attacked by police while preparing to march to Montgomery to protest voting rights discrimination. Without mentioning this violent event that occurred a week prior, there would not be much timeliness to his argument, and it wouldn’t have been as effective. The timeliness of his argument gave the speech a lot more meaning, and it heightened the emotions of many who heard the address. He is appealing to the emotions of many American people, both Congressmen and ordinary citizens, to encourage them to support his cause. He reminds us of all of the Americans around the world that are risking their lives for our freedom. He refers to them as “guardians of our liberty.” He also address the problem as the whole nation should be concerned not just the north, the south, or the African American
And you would be absolutely right to be distressed over something like that. During a television episode of The Daily Show in 2013, John Oliver interviews Philip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defence League. Oliver ands Van Cleave a small paper stop sign that reads “2nd Amendment” and instructs Van Cleave to “hold it up whenever I make a suggestion you think is an infringement upon your second amendment rights.” Oliver goes on to list three things: assault weapons ban, increased background checks, and a mandatory one hour waiting period if you buy a gun. Van Cleave raises the sign after every suggestion claiming, “at the end of the day, none of it works.” Oliver then goes on to cite the time in 1996 when Australia’s conservative Prime Minister, John Howard implemented a mandatory gun buyback across the country. The former Prime Minister also reports that in the eighteen years before the gun ban, there were a total of thirteen massacres, but in all the years since there has not been a single occurrence. He later goes on to report that gun related homicides have gone down by 50-60% and that youth suicides involving guns has decreased dramatically. When Oliver relays this information to Van Cleave, he seems to have lost his ability to argue with him and keeps
Anti-gun control activists believe that the constitutional right granted by the Second Amendment should never be taken away because it would completely violate the purpose the bill of rights (LaPierre, 1 of 2). Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." An unknown author once said, "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."
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.
Although my voting patterns have become somewhat more conservative in recent years, I remain in my heart of hearts a 1960s Humphrey Democrat concerned with the plight of those most vulnerable in American society-minorities, the poor, the elderly, and single women-groups whose day-to-day realities are often overlooked in our public policy debates, people whose lives too often go unnoticed by our intellectually timid chattering classes. This is happening in the public debate over the right to bear arms. For the nation’s elites, the Second Amendment has become the Rodney Dangerfield of the Bill of Rights, constantly attacked by editorial writers, police chiefs seeking scapegoats, demagoging politicians, and most recently even by Rosie O’Donnell, no less. It is threatened by opportunistic legislative efforts, even when sponsors acknowledge their proposed legislation would have little impact on crime and violence.
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.
...t is our job, as citizens, to at least be prepared for the criminals’ attack and to be able to defend ourselves in time of need. At the Virginia Tech shooting, the responding police officers took approximately three minutes to reach the school, but about five minutes to break through the chains binding the doors together. Cho fired rounds off for about nine minutes. Out of those nine minutes only four, or less, could have happened, if a professor or other college personnel stopped the aggressive action before the tragedy was completed. Police cannot get there fast enough sometimes to save a life; citizens must be prepared for the worst. One thing is for sure, one would rather have it and doesn’t need it, than need it and doesn’t have it. People often ask themselves, “Why should I have a gun?” Well guns are needed when seconds count, and the police are minutes away.
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.
Specific Purpose Statement: To persuade my audience that each individual must take responsibility for his or her own actions. The must not blame guns for problems caused by people. .
There is nothing wrong about protecting yourself, but we have to make sure that the weapons we use to protect ourselves don 't get to the wrong people. " The debate about gun control is a global issue. However, it is more intense in the United States of America than any other region (‘Gun Control’ par 1). The groups against gun control show concern about violent crime and they don’t perceive gun control is the answer to violence committed using guns. However, they support strict laws against gun-related crimes and better enforcement of those laws. On the other hand, those who support gun control are of the opinion that background checks are