A recent editorial published in The Ithacan entitled “Government should create stricter gun laws,” analyzes gun laws and restrictions—or, more importantly, the lack thereof—in the United States. The author, Megan Weintraut, discusses the dangers and weaknesses of the current laws in place that regulate gun ownership and accessibility. Her argument, embedded in and cushioned by plethora of factual evidence, seeks to sway the reader’s opinion on gun control in the United States to be in favor of stricter gun laws. While Weintraut succeeds to an extent from a structural and organizational perspective, her editorial is regrettably weak, providing sufficient “logos” and “pathos,” but lacking true “ethos,” and thus degrading her contentions into weak and vague assumptions.
Weintraut initially introduces the issue with a sound and pertinent claim; while the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution may have been relevant and sensible when it was drafted, it may not be as valid or safe of a law today as it used to be (par. 1-2). She provides sufficient background information for the intended reader, or audience—presumably, Ithaca College students, staff, and affiliates—while seamlessly utilizing “logos” by demonstrating research, information, and key facts that aid the reader in understanding her approach and opinions. By claiming that “guns have become decreasingly essential for personal survival…[so] why bother owning one?”, Weintraut further appeals to logic, indicating how guns are unimportant and only detrimental to everyday survival (par. 2). She cleverly suggests the vanity and needlessness of owning an armed weapon before inserting her opinions into the midst of questions.
Weintraut continues her editorial with several paragraphs dedicated to convincing her audience that guns are detrimental through the consistent use of factual evidence. While many of the facts used are relevant and persuasive, most lack the “logic” aspect of “logos,” thus dismantling the credibility of the article, or “ethos.” For instance, she notes that “violence in the media constantly reinforces destructive behavior” by “associating violence with humor” and “desensitize[ing] the dangers of guns” (par. 4). Whereas earlier in the editorial she provides a surplus of factual evidence to support her claims, here, Weintraut confuses opinion with fact. Mixing fact with opinion is not only confusing to the reader, but diminishes her intended purpose to persuade the audience. Assumptions such as these can neither be cited nor proven; a presumption is not a source of logical evidence to support her claim. Furthermore, her credibility is debilitated and limited as she is currently a mere student and citizen, rather than a qualified professional with a degree in the subject matter she is discussing.
Likewise, the structure and purpose are equally confusing. The editorial shifts topics constantly; the article therefore lacks overall focus. The title, for instance, has little to do with the remainder of the article. The argument is initially introduced in a clean and sensible manner, but the solid structure and presentation of the beginning slowly deteriorates as the article presses forward. Weintraut provides cluttered and skewed suggestions for what the government should change to regulate gun control and how they should change it. There is no clear flow of her argument; she shifts from background information, to providing factual and statistical data as evidence, to blaming the media for irresponsible gun use, and finally to suggestions for how to solve the “problem.” Because of all of this, the reasoning and evidence behind her claim is weak due to of the overall lack of focus.
The occasion is, likewise, equally unclear; while the editorial was most likely written as a response to the recent Arizona shooting tragedy, this was never made clear in her argument. Because of this, Weintraut missed yet another opportunity to persuade her audience. To make her argument even stronger, she could have focused even more on the “pathos,” or the emotional appeal of the tragedy, citing how the shooting of could have been prevented were American gun laws stricter. She only mentions the shooting on two occasions in the article, and never truly grasps her audience’s emotional attachment to the event as a result. Instead of arbitrarily and irrelevantly focusing on her claim that video games and other media should be blamed for desensitizing much of modern American culture, she could have utilized the shooting of the Arizona congresswoman and several innocent bystanders and used it to her advantage—strengthening her argument by tugging at the emotions of her audience.
Because much of the argument is based on opinion and interpretation, the most significant aspect that is absent from the editorial is the argument’s consideration, acknowledgement and response of opposing or other views. While the article does not necessarily waste time discussing or presenting needless information, more should have been spent addressing some of the other perspectives. At the same time, some of her arguments are weakened by obvious or glaring counterpoints that she neglects to address. For instance, she mentions how “Federal law doesn’t restrict the number of guns that can be purchased at one time,” although several states do have some limitations to gun purchases (par. 5). What she does not mention, however, is how every gun has the potential to kill. Just because the bearer has more than one gun does not necessarily mean that he or she are more dangerous or deadly; a person with one gun could be far more dangerous than a person with twelve. Thus, her argument is weakened and some credibility is lost from neglecting to acknowledge an opposing view.
Weintraut has an overall clear opinion that she expresses persuasively in her editorial. However, a variety of technical and emotional barriers prevent her argument from being sound, particularly on her over-focus on “logos,” almost to the point where she defies her own logic by crossing fact with opinion. Likewise, the structure of the article is lacking focus and backbone, along with a clear sense of opposing views. Because of all this, Weintraut’s editorial is fairly unconvincing, which is disappointing, considering how strongly it began.
Works Cited
Weintraut, Megan. “Government should create stricter gun laws.” The Ithacan. 26 Jan. 2011. Web, 6 Feb 2011.
Well done, Ethan. The additional analysis of occasion makes this an even more thorough and more thoughtful paper.
ReplyDelete