Cleaning the Barrel: A Rhetorical Analysis of Megan Weintraut’s article, “Government should create stricter gun laws.”
Megan Weintraut, a senior mathematics major at Ithaca College, published her reasoned and lucid article, “Government should create stricter gun laws”, on January 26th, 2011, in the student and faculty read newspaper, The Ithacan. “Events such as the Columbine High School shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting and most recently the Arizona shooting have forced us to address the issue” (par. 6). This timely editorial is a response to the current issue of the shootings in Arizona, and gives Weintraut the opportunity to stress the dangers and to extrapolate towards all gun violence and the gun related governing laws. Weintraut’s compelling and logical reaction piece is strongly based in support of increasing the restrictions of gun bearing American citizens.
Weintraut’s rational argument is its strongest appeal. The facts cannot be denied, nor can they be ignored. “It (The Second Amendment) was established to create a nationwide civilian army during a time when Britain’s organized and profession army threatened the development of an independent America. At this time, many families lived in isolation, and it was necessary to hunt and kill animals to supply food. Guns were essential in protecting and providing for families” (par. 1). The author explains how in a once desperate and determined country, guns were given out much more freely than the present to protect America as a whole. Now, the United States can provide care and protection to its citizens by means of its multi-faceted government. The need to own a gun is not essential for survival any more, and so Weintraut moves to create stricter laws against these citizens who own guns just for the sake of owning them.
“The National Institute of Justice reported that in 2006 alone, firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders, and more than 90 percent of today’s gang-related homicides involve guns” (par. 3). Weintraut explains further that violence in the media has an increasing effect on today’s children, setting bad examples at early ages. But you cannot fault the media 100 percent. “Federal law doesn’t restrict the number of guns that can be purchased at one time” (par. 5).
The facts are incontrovertible, just as Weintraut’s sound argument. She incorporates a number of significant and effective facts that show that this argument is not just an opinion, but a documented and historical correlation between the amount of gun paraphernalia in a person’s life and the tendencies to use those guns. All of Weintraut’s well researched facts have a direct impact over the reader to sway towards not only understanding her outlook, but to believe it too. Weintraut could have influenced her readers to make a stand and an impression on our government even more if she had incorporated a call to action or an option for students and faculty to become involved.
Weintraut, being a senior and publishing articles for The Ithacan, gives her the credibility needed for her pieces to be engaging and “reading material” for both students and faculty. Weintraut begins this article with The Second Amendment as passed by Congress, showing her readers right at the beginning that this is a serious topic and that under no circumstances is this to be interpreted as a joke. Her argument ends with a comedy line from Chris Rock, which displays Weintraut’s use of “insider language” and the knowledge of her audience due to the location of her article. Although being a mathematics major does not exactly qualify her to be writing in this field, her beliefs are still valid. It would strengthen the influential aspects of the piece if the reader understood where Weintraut was coming from in this article or why she decided to write it.
The use of emotion in any persuasive piece is imperative, especially when the topic covers the death of citizens, not to mention young children. Weintraut makes her readers understand the importance of this article by keeping the fear of loss or pain very real in their mind. She does portray negative facts in the piece, but only to bring about an emotional reaction from her readers and captivate their attention. She plays the other aspect as well as she reassures the viewers by reinforcing the promise of gain throughout the article. Yes, guns do kill numerous people daily and their destructive presence is felt around the world, but there is always a silver lining. Weintraut promises her readers comfort. Comfort can be inferred as safety from unlawful citizens or it can be interpreted as being comfortable in the United States to live and raise a family.
Weintraut takes the complete opposite path now and uses emotional appeals such as humor and satire to entice her readers. “Instead of minimizing the number of arms available to the public, the ‘sensible’ argument would be to eliminate gun violence by providing more guns to the public” (par. 3). Here, she is insinuating that if everyone had access to guns and the ability to use them, everyone would get shot, die, and there would be no more problems. Obviously, this is not the answer, but she calms the argument and reader down a little. Weintraut uses comic relief as well in the last line of her article: “‘Everybody is talking about gun control…I think we need some bullet control! ...If a bullet costs $5,000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders’” (par. 6). Weintraut uses this quote to show how effective the role of money has on citizens’ actions, when money should not have a role in the choice of life or death for others at all.
This article’s use of logic, well researched facts, comical and serious quotes, and emotion to persuade readers, all connect together to form an excellent case to increase the gun laws in America. This piece should wake up any passive readers to do your part in reducing the pain that must be suffered by family members of the victims of gun related deaths. The Second Amendment is still enforced today, but then again, it is an amendment.
Works Cited
Weintraut, Megan. "Government should create stricter gun laws." The Ithacan. January 6, 2011. Online. January 26, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment