Nicholas Kristof, in his article "Lessons From the Virginia Shooting" (2015), argues that gun control in America is abysmal and needs to be addressed. He propels his argument first giving several statistics that show the massive amounts of gun homicides, then arguing against gun advocates, and finally, clearly describing steps that should be taken to fix the problem. Kristof’s purpose is to assert that guns are dangerous and should be regulated just as cars, ladders, and pools are in order to convince the general public and the government that gun control is something that needs to be taken more seriously. He uses logic and factual statements to appeal to a more educated audience that could perhaps have the power to make the changes he suggests.
Before reading this article I wasn’t really sure how I felt about gun control, but now I feel more compelled to agree with Kristof. His data and statistics are a little hard to ignore, especially when they seem realistic. When comparing guns to cars, his argument was especially effective. I’ve often thought about how cars are used to argue against people who wish to regulate gun control, and his response satisfied me. Cars were made safer, so guns should be made safer too! It’s so simple! He’s not on the side that wants to get rid of guns absolutely, he’s simply saying that they need to be regulated more carefully. Another thing that I liked about his argument was that he also gave specific steps that should be taken to fix the problem, and they all seem relatively easy. He’s not just saying we need to fix the problem, he’s giving actual instructions that could potentially be followed. All in all, I liked his argument, and I think his suggestions would certainly help lower gun homicide rates and benefit everyone.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour Précis is well-written, but I have a few suggestions: In sentence one, perhaps you should also mention Kristof’s emphasis on responding to the Virginia shooting and using the incident as an opportunity to reevaluate American gun control. You never even referenced the Virginia incident once in the Précis, aside from from when writing the title of the article. For the second sentence, I liked how it thoroughly encompassed all of the article’s main points. In your third sentence, I would suggest removing “Kristof’s purpose is to assert that guns are dangerous and should be regulated just as cars, ladders, and pools are,” and rather just focusing on the second part, that “in order to convince the general public and the government that gun control is something that needs to be taken more seriously.” I say this because the third sentence is supposed to address the author’s broader purpose and what he wanted his audience to take out of his piece. Lastly, in the fourth sentence, I would suggest adding Kristof’s specific tone in the piece, which I would describe as “protective.” Other than these suggestions, your Precis was strong.
ReplyDeleteAs for your response, I liked many of the points you made. I very much agree with you that his statistics were hard to ignore. I personally found those statistics quite shocking and unsettling, so it was a real eye-opener for me on the issue of American gun violence. I also liked how he quelled the car argument by pointing out that we have made significant steps to make cars safer. I also agree that it’s important that he is not proposing the complete ban of guns because that is a political impossibility with the immense strength of the NRA. Even his proposed solutions, though, would also be subject to attack by the all-powerful NRA. I’m not sure I would call them “relatively easy,” but I definitely agree that they can be reached, so as long as they garner enough support. If Australia could do it, as Kristof smartly pointed out, then we can do it too.
Great work, both of you! I would point one on the topic of Australia: they don't have a Constitutional right to bear arms. That's why they were able to do what they did.
ReplyDelete