Gun Control Debate 

  Currently in the US, there are rising tensions due to items such as global warming and healthcare. But one issue that always draws in headlines would be the idea of gun control and restrictions of assault rifles. Whenever a mass shooting occurs, the conversation is brought back up and these terms become key for the next week or so. Here, we will see this issue being addressed by four different types of sources and analyze how each source brings a unique perspective.

The first article is found in the magazine The Economist. This article begins by addressing the fact that America has had two mass shootings within a day, the one that occurred in Dayton and the one that occurred in El Paso. He then makes a comparison to other countries and says how nations with similar statuses of America don’t have this issue. This allows the author to pose the question: what is the cause/motive of all these recent shootings? At first he looks at the El Paso shooter and notes that his language regarding immigrants is one that is akin to President Trumps and points to Trump’s words as a swaying factor. But then, the author points out the other side of this argument when he notes that mass shootings of all nature have occurred before Trump, and that in one of the shooter’s manifesto there is language relating to socialism. By bringing these points up, the author confirms the presence of bias and acts to remove them in the search for the answer. This makes the article have a more neutral tone and get readers to resonate with his message better. The author then goes on to point the finger at gun control laws. The author references New Zealand’s actions after a mass shooting had occurred there and state that the US should go about a similar course of action. After he says this, we start to understand his purpose. He wants a change in gun control laws, specifically restricting the purchase of assault rifles He then notes the reality of the situation by marking that the constitution won’t be amended to ban guns, and in response says that these stricter gun control laws can limit the amount of deaths and that is an absolute win. By saying this, the author brings people together on the fact that lessening deaths is a good thing and that people should not debate that fact when arguing about this topic. By doing so, he brings more validity to his message and answer. He uses a very disappointed tone to start things off. The first thing the author writes about are the two shootings and the prose used makes it seem like the author us tired of the pattern that has been recently developed. This is confirmed when in the first paragraph he says “Yet at the same time they were not surprising…” when talking about the shootings. By saying this, he insinuates the idea that shootings have become something expected, and that is disappointing. By using this disappointed tone, it makes the reader also feel tired and want change to occur. This helps the author make his audience agree on the stance that assault rifles need a ban.

Another piece on gun control is this opinion article from the newspaper called UWIRE and is written by Brett Landry.In this, the author tries to argue that guns aren’t the big problem when it comes to these mass shootings, but instead mental health. This allows us to see that her purpose is to persuade people to look at mental health as the cause to gun violence. To begin her argument, she addresses the claim that banning assault rifles would completely clear out the dangers of mass shootings. He says that in fact “in 1994 gun ban sunset in 2004, thereby allowing the public greater firearm access, gun-related homicides steadily dropped to the lowest rates in American history.” This helps her draw the conclusion that ,it is in fact, not assault rifles at the heart of this issue. He then asserts that gun crimes usually occur in gun-free zones, such as churches and schools. By stating this, it makes the reader to understand and actually start to see where the author is coming from and the author can start talking about mental health. She uses some statistics to draw parallels between mental health and gun violence, such as “Common factors among most mass shooters and suicide victims include childhood trauma, lack of validation…”. By doing so, she makes it so it seems that the two issues relate more that it seems. At the end, she issued a statement, saying that all Americans suffer from mass shootings and that it would help everyone if the issue being addressed would be mental health, instead of assault rifle bans. By addressing everyone as Americans, he creates a sense of familiarity which encourages readers, i.e, Americans, to listen to his message. This is a bit different than the magazine article as the purposes go in opposite directions. This also takes a different approach than the magazine article because it adapts this condescending tone. Many times during the article, the author uses phrases such as “When actually…” and “The truth is…”. Phrasings of this nature make it seem as if the author knows the true answer and can’t believe that people think differently. This made the author seem superior and really strove away from what the magazine did

Another piece about gun control and gun violence is from the scholarly journal The New York Times Upfront and is written by Ladd Everitt and Erich Pratt. This article is interesting in that it is a discussion. The question being asked if stricter gun control laws are required, and two different groups answered. One is a supporter while the other is not. The reader in mind seems to be anyone, as the discussion is to promote conversation. The biases in the article are stated beforehand and it gives off a welcoming tone because you know what you are getting into. First, a supporter of stricter laws talks and says that stricter gun control is required. He brings up death counts to help him argue. He says things such as “We lose more than 32,000 Americans to gun violence every year in this country. That’s an average of 87 deaths a day.”. He then concludes that no other powerful nation has such a problem so there is an underlying issue here, which starts with the guns. Then, the other party speaks and says that we do not need stricter laws. He alludes to a case where a doctor saved someone getting attacked by shooting the assailant. He then goes on to count the number of lives saved by guns used in self defense. He says “…there are anywhere between 500,000 to 3 million annual cases of guns being used for self-defense.”. This brings the notion that the issue is somewhere other than the guns themselves. This article is definitely different from the rest because it argues from both sides. And the arguers aren’t writers or reporters but everyday citizens, which gives it a neutral tone and allows people to digest each side. It feels like a conversation more than a book so more conversation can occur regarding the issue.

The last piece regarding gun control is from a website called Psychology Today and written by Dr. Michael Austin. Before you read the article, there is a section for the author’s name and picture. We see that he has a Ph.D which reassures us that he is educated, and likely his opinion as well. Allowing us to see his face is also reassuring because it reminds us that a human wrote this, so it adds a human touch. This is not something that the other articles did and so it stood out. He argues that there needs to be stricter gun control and says the arguments not supporting this are flawed. He begins his argument by addressing two counterclaims. The first being that we need guns to overthrow a tyrannical government. He answers this by stating that America’s military might is far too strong for civilians to fight, should it come to it. And the second is that gun violence usually occurs in places with strict gun control. For this, he responds by saying that this means that we need more widespread laws to counteract this, because people are just going to places where they can easily buy it as a workaround. Another fact he brings up are that when guns are brought into households, they usually lead to suicide rather than self defense. He then concludes that the right to firearms should not endanger everybody. He adopts a serious tone throughout all of this. He doesn’t make a joke or uses any sarcasm and uses very debate-like terms such as “counterclaim” and “justifiable argument”. Using these terms lets the readers know that the author is arguing against everyone who opposes his stance on gun control.

Each of these sources brought their own shine to the topic. It wasn’t even the author and what information they were giving out but what each source provided in general. For example, the last source, the website, featured the author’s picture, something that the other sources did not. And they really couldn’t because it did not fit into their style, which was being professional. And even then they stood out. All of them had different tones which accomplished different things.The second to last source also featured two authors and was a conversation more than an article, which had a completely different effect. Each source was speaking to a different audience as well. The first one was aimed towards people who want change, The second was speaking to people who think that assault rifles are the main problem. The third one was aimed at anyone, as they just wanted to share a conversation to spread the issue according to the abstract. While the final one was aimed at people who do not support gun control. So being just a regular website had its advantages, one of which is being able to attract anybody. But on the other hand, because it is just a regular website and not a reputed business, less people will visit it and read what they have to say. The stances each author took also didn’t mean much, as in this topic you can only have one of two stances: I want more gun control or not. The medium of all these sources were the same, my computer, so it is not as if the medium had any effect. But each source provided its own light and each had its own advantages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citations

 

“America Is the Only Rich Country That Has Frequent Mass Shootings.” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, https://amp.economist.com/leaders/2019/08/08/america-is-the-only-rich-country-that-has-frequent-mass-shootings..

 

Austin, Michael. “We Need Stricter Gun Laws.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-everyone/201402/we-need-stricter-gun-laws.

 

Everitt, Ladd, and Erich Pratt. “Does the U.S. need tougher gun-control laws?” New York Times Upfront, 20 Apr. 2015, p. 22+. Gale OneFile: Educator’s Reference Complete, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A412684868/PROF?u=nysl_ca_dmvacces&sid=PROF&xid=b8b0a609. Accessed 19 Sept. 2019.

 

Landry, Brett. “Opinion: Stop jumping the gun: Real solution to gun problem lies in mental health investment.” UWIRE Text, 25 Aug. 2019, p. 1. Gale OneFile: Educator’s Reference Complete, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A597417886/PROF?u=nysl_ca_dmvacces&sid=PROF&xid=8c4f5259. Accessed 19 Sept. 2019.