Clamp Down On Gun-Clip Overkill
In the Denver Post editorial section, the article "Clamp Down On Gun-Clip Overkill" addresses the recent shooting in Tucson that killed six people and wounded 19. The major premise is that high-capacity gun magazines are unnecessary and jeopardize the safety of the public. The article describes how Jared Loughner was able to successfully execute and wound several innocent people in a shooting due to the 33-round magazine he had loaded in his Glock pistol. The minor premise of the article is that Jared Loughner’s shooting spree is a direct result of the expired assault weapons ban. The conclusion is that high-capacity magazines are dangerous and unnecessary, and should therefore be banned. The shooting is an example of kiaros, which provides the writer with an advantageous time to publish their arguments for gun control to a certain extent because the audience is more likely to feel urgency over this rhetorical situation.
The editorial goes on to explain that magazines with the capacity to hold excessive ammunition have no purpose other than empowering owners to easily kill a lot of people, as hunting doesn't require such readily available rounds and neither does any self-defense purposes. The author uses a persuasive logos appeal by explaining that a paranoid homeowner is most likely not going to be invaded by 33-armed assailants, for which a magazine such as Glock offers would be considered necessary. Although the restriction of the right to bear arms is considered unconstitutional or unpatriotic and therefore leaves the writer with no commonplaces; the article states that, "This is not a debate about taking anyone's guns away. It's simply recognition that if people want to kill a lot of people, the ability to fire a lot of bullets quickly makes it so much easier." This excerpt strengthens the writer's logos appeal by assuring gun activists that this is a matter of public safety rather than an attempt to take away the right of every citizen to own guns. Ethos appeal is also present because the writer demonstrates their good will towards the audience by insuring that the safety of the American people must come first.
The article quotes Dick Cheney saying, "maybe it's appropriate" to bring back the assault weapons ban that was instituted by the Clinton administration in 1994 with the support of Reagan, Carter, and Ford. Under this law, which is nonexistent as of the George W. Bush presidency, prohibits the sale of weaponry such a Loughner used. This example encourages readers to agree with the need for a ban on high-capacity magazines as the writer creates a strong ethos appeal using the actions of several respected former presidents, which gives credibility to the argument. The reference to the 1993 Long Island Railroad shootings, which resulted in the death of the husband of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. and the wounding of her son, provides the editorial with a strong pathos appeal as the incidence makes the reader feel sympathy and compassion towards Rep. McCarthy, two strong emotions which can be used to persuade the audience.
The proofs used in this article are effective because they logically, ethically, and emotionally lead the reader to agree that these magazines are dangerous and need to be banned. The author opposes a law that permits assault weapons, however, they present arguments that seem unbiased even to the avid N.R.A. member. The key to the writer’s effectiveness is that they indirectly suggest to the reader that the unalienable right to life is more important than the constitutional right to bear arms. The editorial does not take an extreme point of view such as holding the manufacturer of the weapon, Glock, accountable for the murders that Loughner committed. Instead, it is the safety and security of the public that the writer focuses on. The audience, advocates of gun control or not, are forced to consider the value of human life and if a 33-round magazine is worth the cost.
No comments:
Post a Comment