Guns
- Kristof’s main purpose of his article was towards the lack of gun control which has led to countless saddening events such as massacre and much more. Many politicians refuse to discuss the issue itself and avoid making future legislation to not just ban weapons, but to regulate them instead. Also Kristof pointed out how fascinating that the government is able to regulate certain issues such automobiles where laws dictate to not text and drive, don’t drink and drive, safety concerns such as seatbelts and the like, and also building codes are to be enforced so tenants of the building are safe.
- Some persuasive strategies the author used within his article was the usage of evidence; which the author used facts, datas and examples. Where he has used Australia as an example that they passed a ‘National Firearms Agreement’ back in 1996 after a mass killing that left multiple people dead. Since then the numbers of mass killing have dwindled down, stronger gun control regulations, and much more. Whereas in Canada they have tighter regulations when buying weapons such as a 28 waive period and such. These measures have proved effective and shown that the government isn’t there to take away weapons, but more as that it doesn’t fall on the wrong hands and such. Also the author was persuasive in some sense that also politicians somewhat refused to enacted further legislations and many are backed by the NRA and as well that many aren’t well informed and as well certain legislations that have been previously enacted is poorly worded and aren’t well enforced, for example a New York law which banned gun magazines that has more than 7 bullets where as there’s no such weapons that have less. Kristof used research based data to support his argument that the U.S. lacks universal background check in which many citizens and organizations support it, and our current background check is flawed and that countless citizens obtain weapons without going through one.
- Some of the author’s weakness of his article is that it may sound biased to the point that he’s siding for much more gun control, regulation and whatnot. Also that he doesn’t provide any such evidence of rebuttal based on why many don’t really agree on a universal background check, safer regulations and much more. I believe that can additional background why further legislation hasn’t been enacted or provide further factual evidence to support their opposition. A strength that the author has was he was able to use factual representation to use for his argument and as well have a better understanding of the political lack of interest to further enact legislation where politics aren’t fully well informed. Where the author used how the term ‘gun control’ is being overused, yet poorly worded and should consider an alternative such as ‘gun safety. “And every time liberals speak blithely about banning guns, they boost the N.R.A. Let’s also banish the term “gun control”: the better expression is “gun safety.”’ Also a big applause to the author that most of the sources can be widely legit of course, but most of them are governmental sources in which gives more credibility.
Site Title 