Guns

Argument 1

The first argument of Nicholas Kristof regarding guns regulations is based on a simple question that accompanies the whole text from the beginning to its end. “Why can’t we regulate guns as seriously as we do cars?” he asks. The author claims that guns need to be regulated in the United States, and he delivers many reasons why he finds this necessary. While making this argument, he compares gun regulations to cars regulations and rules that seem to be more or less generally respected and followed. He puts emphasize on auto safety and claims that it is the area where we can look for inspiration when it comes to creating gun regulations.

The author uses different strategies and appeals when making the argument. First, I think pathos creates a big part of the rhetoric of his statements. Even in the first paragraphs, schools and children are mentioned which I assume the author uses to evoke one’s emotions. This appeal is even stronger when in the last sentence he uses the pronouns “your, our” to stress and help the reader imagine the situation and simply put herself in shoes of a parent who might lose her child. Second, the author uses logos and a large amount of evidence to support his claims. Some of these are factual examples when speaking of different kinds of protections of American schoolchildren, facts and data when providing us with statistics, the personal story the author shares or even the anecdote about adopting a pet. All of these should support author’s claims. Lastly, the author almost does not use the passive form so from what we read we can tell what happened and why it happened.

I find the biggest strength of this article in the evidence that the author provides to support his arguments. On the other hand, the author stresses that gun regulations are needed, but he does not specify what exact regulations should be done.

Argument 2

            The second argument comes from the same author but was written three years later. Even though the article was written by the same author, different strategies and appeals are used.

            The main arguments of the text still discuss gun regulations, yet in a different light. The author provides us with different kinds of complications that make implementing gun regulations more difficult. Many controversies, wrong expectations and ambiguities are presented such as a gun ignorance or inaccurate naming.

            In this argument, the author uses different appeals than in his first text. Firstly, many rebuttals are used to make correct explanations that further support his arguments. In this text, he rarely uses rhetoric to evoke one’s emotions which is one of the biggest differences from the first argument. On the other hand, the author again provides a large amount of evidence when he mentions researchers’ findings, expert’s notes, history events or polls.

            I find the strength of this article in its format. I personally appreciate the depersonalization of the arguments which the author substitutes with different types of evidence and data. Depending on the readers, however, this may also be the weakness of the article.