Essay 1.2 Self Defense or Self Destruction: A Rhetorical Analysis of Megan Weintraut’s “Governments should create stricter gun laws.”

             The right to bear arms is an issue that has been at the forefront of American society for many decades.  It is a very controversial topic, with many adamantly favoring it while others are vehemently opposed.   In the January issue of The Ithacan, an article titled “Government should create stricter gun laws,” by Megan Weintraut addresses one view on this debated subject.  She understands that the right to bear arms is a part of our constitution, but as times change she argues that we must view the right to bear arms in a new light.   The basis for the creation of this amendment stemmed from a time when guns were necessary for personal survival; to hunt for food and defend oneself from the British Army.   Today, the need to own a weapon for personal survival has greatly decreased, so Weintraut then asks us the question, “Why bother owning one?”   She uses both statistical reasoning and real world connections, as well as appealing to her audience’s emotions to try and convince us that gun control should be more closely regulated. 

            Right off the bat, Weintraut makes the point that “the majority of American citizens can live their daily lives easily and securely without the use of arms…For protection, we have diverse and organized military services as well as law enforcement agencies at all levels of government” (par 2).  This serves to prove that the need for guns on a personal level has greatly decreased over the past 200 years, and puts the idea of need for a gun into a modern context.  She is using logos to make it clear that this is an important concept to understand when looking at gun control in today’s society. 

            In the next phase of her argument she again uses logos bombarding readers with statistics, making them realize how prevalent guns are in our nation, and of the effects of their proliferation.  She tells us that 70 million Americans are gun owners, and many of them cite the reason for their gun ownership as self-defense, an idea well in line with our constitution (par 2).  The next sentence then reports that Americans own many more guns than other developed nations, accounting for a higher number of homicides.  This shouldn't be the case if most Americans only want a gun for self-defense.  She then adds that, “firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders, and more than 90 percent of today’s gang-related homicides involve guns” (par 3).  Here she uses statistics to show that guns and homicide are closely correlated, and that because we have more guns in our society that all other places in the world, more homicides will occur. 

            Continuing the statistical approach, she then intertwines some real world connections to give her argument more depth, credibility and authority. Weintraut is now using ethos to appeal to her audience and get her point across.  She states that “…66 percent of television programs contain violence…the popular video game Grand Theft Auto rewards players for murdering law enforcement (par 4).”  This supports her claim that, “Violence in the media reinforces destructive behavior” (par 4). Having experienced popular culture, this is just one example from a long list of games in which players are rewarded for violent acts.   She contends that the extreme amount of violence in the media desensitizes today’s youth, and that they don’t understand the true danger of guns.  This seems to be a valid claim given the rise in unnecessary violent acts committed by young people over the past decades. 

            Moving on to the main portion of her argument about the government and stricter gun laws, she tells us how easy it can be to own not one, but not multiple guns in the United States.  Out of the fifty states, only four limit the number of guns that can be purchased at a single time.  One gun can be bought every thirty days, to be exact.  This still allows for individuals to stockpile weapons, a scary thought if these arms were to fall into the wrong hands.   Weintraut then talks about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, established in 1994 but which expired in 2004, allowing Americans to have access to assault weapons, the type of weapon that Jared Loughner used in the recent Arizona shooting (par 5).  This horrible event created the perfect occasion for her argument. Here, she is using logos, to reason with her audience and show them that it is possible to acquire weapons with tremendous firepower.

            To conclude her argument Weintraut uses pathos to appeal to her audience’s emotional side.  By mentioning the Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Arizona shootings, she strives to evoke an emotional response in her readers, hoping to make the issue really strike home (par 5).  By making these emotional, real world connections in the final stage of her argument, Weintraut tries to punch home the fact that the government must more strictly regulate gun control, or more heinous, unnecessary violent acts could be committed. 

            In “Government should create stricter gun laws,” Weintraut uses a variety of techniques to persuade her audience.  Her argument is supported with statistics, application to the real world, and the emotional connection associated with violent acts resulting from guns.  In my opinion, her argument could have been made stronger with more direct claims supported with evidence about the current lax nature of gun control laws.  She skates around the topic for a while before hammering home her main points.   I think it would have been more effective to jump right into the main point of her argument right away. However, I believe she gets her point across in convincing fashion and leaves readers leaning towards her point of view.

Works Cited

Weintraut, Megan. “Government should create stricter gun laws.” The Ithacan. 26 Jan. 2011. Web.  7 Feb. 2011