Essay 1.2: Lethal Weapons: A Rhetorical Analysis of "Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws"

Mark Melchior
Eleanor Henderson
Academic Writing
February 6, 2011
Lethal Weapons:

A Rhetorical Analysis of
“Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws”

Editorials are great for learning the public agenda. They are centers for opinionated thought, that open debate and offer multiple perspectives of several issues. Megan Weintraut of The Ithacan penned an editorial titled, “Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws.” featuring the subject of gun control, and how there is a desperate need to revise the Second Amendment. This article was published on January 26, 2011; only 18 days after the Tucson shooting. It would seem that in light of the recent events in Arizona, Weintraut believes there is a strong occasion to speak on the larger issue of gun violence. In her article she makes use of facts, emotion, and is supported by firm logic to persuade her audience.
One of the more interesting pieces of the article is the frequent use of ethos, or credibility. Her use of statistics allows for the article to retain its integrity, without appearing arrogant or dogmatic. Although they are overwhelming at first, their placement makes for a logical and credible argument. For example, “The American Journal of Public Health determined that, in comparison to all other developed nations, Americans own significantly more firearms…” (3). By referencing public institutions, rather than a questionable source, Weintraut makes it much more difficult for a rebuttal. She also oversteps assumptions that the article is not to be taken any less serious than front-page news, simply because it is an editorial. She goes on to report that, “The National Institute of Justice reported that in 2006…firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders.” (3). This affirms that guns are, in fact, causing an issue in the average American’s life. Each fact that is produced by the article is aimed at suggesting there is a lack of gun control. She also supports her claim by utilizing a combination of implicit and explicit ideas within the text.
Weintraut employs another factor in the article, logos. Logic exists in this text more so between the lines. Logic is more than just appealing to common sense. It is her ability to make the reader recognize that a freedom in our society is pouring salt in an open wound. The salt being guns, the wound being crime. The facts discussed as part of her use of ethos only enhance this feeling. Weintraut draws readers to her side of the fence through this realization. She forces the audience to step outside of himself and compare the Second Amendment to modern American lifestyle. She quotes the Second Amendment at the beginning of the article, and then proceeds to make the comparison, “…the majority of American citizens can live their daily lives easily and securely without the use of arms…we have diverse military services as well as law enforcement agencies at all levels of government…Guns have become decreasingly essential for personal survival,”(2). She also observes that animals are no longer hunted for survival, rather that they are raised and slaughtered in a business. Her comments here are somewhat sarcastic, but powerful. She is saying that Americans no longer live in a lawless, “dead or alive” society any more. This argument contends that we are more sophisticated as a species, and more so as American citizens. There is no need to own weapons for “self defense.” The realization that finally stems from this logic is that guns are not essential to thrive in America.
The observations, percentages, and statistics all imply that there is a lack of effort to fix the issue. The title, “Government should create Stricter Gun Laws,” acts as a call to action for the public and government to be aware of the growing violence. She then goes on to sample actual events that, in her opinion, propose a reason to put a leash on guns. In one of the final paragraphs, Weintraut also wields these historical events to play at the emotions the public suffered them. In one sentence she references the tragedies at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Tucson. All of which involved the use of firearms. These statements are an attempt to reach out to victims, and bystanders who heard or witnessed these tragedies. It is a direct strike to a person’s heart, in order to motivate her cause. Weintraut’s comments are brief, however their mention has no less effect. No one desires another catastrophe like these events, and it is incredibly frightening when such moments are brought into the spotlight. That is what makes them relevant. Weintraut’s purpose is to sell the idea that firearms have very little role in everyday life, and this part of the essay is a catalyst for support. Pathos, emotion, is one of the most effective tools that can be utilized in an argument. It tends to let the mind wander and think of reasons why the issue is important. Here, emotion is used to promote strong opposition to firearms.
Weintraut focuses on several audiences in this essay. These include the Federal Government, gun crime victims, and gun owners. It allows her to address multiple objectives based around her claim that firearms need attention. In another segment she begins to criticize state government, rather than the Federal Government. Weintraut comments, “Federal law doesn’t restrict the number of guns that can be purchased at one time…21 years old…he or she can choose from an uncomfortably wide range of arms and ammunition.” (5). This cold reality insinuates that concern over gun crimes is seemingly nonexistent. The judgment almost demands that this should be more of a national interest, and it works. In her research she found that there are only four states that have made some sort of effort at restricting firearm purchases: “Only four states (California, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia) limit their citizens to one gun purchase every 30 days.” (5). It seems at this point that Weintraut is indirectly addressing her audience. The audience, government, general public, and victims are all being told that this number is far too small. It is an indirect call to action, in order to build support for changing gun laws, as well as an analysis of society’s inaction.
This article certainly emulates what an editorial should be. Although it is opinionated, it is not impossible to argue. Megan Weintraut creates a very reasonable, smart, and effective argument against the Government’s lack luster efforts to halt gun crimes. She criticizes state and Federal institutions for not being more aware and concerned with the issue. At the same time she employs facts to support her claim. Also, there are quick jabs at the heart of Americans by referencing tragedies caused by firearms. Finally, she used compelling logic as a last attempt to gain support. By using a combination of these, Weintraut generates a convincing argument that opens debate for a higher cause.















Works Cited
Weintraut, Megan. "Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws." Ithacan 26 Jan 2011: n. pag. Web. 6 Feb 2011. .