Mark Melchior
Eleanor Henderson
Academic Writing
February 6, 2011
Rhetorical Analysis
Editorials are great for learning the public agenda. They are centers for opinionated thought that opens debate and offer multiple perspectives of several issues. Megan Weintraut of The Ithacan penned an editorial featuring the subject of gun control, and how there is a desperate need to revise the Second Amendment. In the article she makes use of facts and along with firm logic and is also supported by to persuade her audience.
One of the more interesting pieces of the article is the frequent use of statistics. 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…” By referencing public institutions, rather than someone or something less official, Weintraut makes it much more difficult for a rebuttal. She goes on to report that, “The National Institute of Justice reported that in 2006…firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders.” Each fact that is produced by the article is aimed at suggesting there is a lack of gun control. She attempts to do this through a combination of implicit and explicit ideas within the text. The observations, percentages, and statistics all imply that there is a lack of effort to ix 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 uses historical events to play at the anger and sorrow the public suffered over a few violent acts. In one sentence she references, “Events such as the Columbine High School shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting, and most recently the Arizona shooting.” 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. Emotion is one of the most effective tools that can be utilized to be awareness. It tends to let the mind wander and think of reasons why the issue is important.
In another segment the author begins to criticize state government, rather than the Federal Government. Weintraut states, “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.” This cold reality insinuates that concern of gun crimes is not very widespread. The criticism 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.”
Weintraut employs another factor in the article. She forces the reader to step outside of himself and compare the Second Amendment to modern American living. 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.” 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” type society any more. There is no need to own weapons for “self defense.” It is now easier to understand that guns are not essential to thrive in America.
This article certainly emulates what an editorial should be. Although it is opinionated, it is not impossible to argue. Megan Weintraut’s examination of the Governments lack luster effort 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 creates 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. .