Argumentative Evaluation: Gun Control - Essay Example

of the of the Concerned English 16 October Gun Control The article, A Clamor for Gun Limits, but Few Expect Real Changes by Adam Nogourney and Jennifer Steinhauer, published in The New York Times on 13 January 2011, revolves around the issue of gun control in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting. The article begins by delving on a knee jerk reaction of the National Rifle Association after the Tucson shooting in deciding to be low profile and evasive, citing the reasons of sympathy with the victims. However, the very same article slowly and gradually tends to build a support around the issue of the controversial right to bear arms by mentioning varied affiliated organizations and politicians, who think that the concerned shooting will have but a little impact on the right to bear arms. Predominantly the article tends to support the right to bear arms in a bluntly subtle and tactically evasive manner. The line of argument chosen by the writer is pyramidal in its scope and structure. The main objective of the writer across the article seems to be to support and consolidate the public opinion hovering around the right to bear arms. In the argumentative structure chosen by the authors, the writers seem to be well aware of the fact that in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting, there exists a predominant pubic sentient around the issue of gun control. So the writers seem have decided to wriggle into the mind space of the readers vying for tougher gun control laws, by pretending to be sympathetic with the victims of the Tucson shootings. They also pretend to be supportive of the one step backward public stance of the associated organizations like the National Rifle Association. Resorting to such a strategy allows the writers to solicit the attention of the readers supportive of gun control. However, doing so, the writers proceed to dilute and blunt the popular opinion against the issue of gun control by mentioning that both the supporters and detractors of gun control see very little hope for gun control laws getting tougher in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings. Doing so, the writers do manage to steal the steam out of the existing support for gun control. Still, the writers being aware that they have yet not done much to mallow the well informed supporters of gun control, proceed to mention a range of upcoming arms and ammunition related events and exhibitions like ‘Crossroads of the West Gun Show’ organized by the National Rifle Association and ‘Los Vegas Shot Show’ to cement the notion that the Tucson shooting had little if any impact on the existing support for the right to carry arms. Once successful in coming out with their true colors that are being the ardent supporters of the right to carry arms, the writers proceed with a strong verve and confidence in approaching the very base of their pyramidal line of argument by presenting a laundry list of a wide range of leaders and opinion makers like the Republican Representative from Utah, Jason Chaffetz and Representative Gabrielle Giffords who personally carry concealed arms in their constituencies and support the right to bear arms. As an associative tactics, the writers also do not forget to mention the names of the personalities supportive of gun control, scattered across the Republicans and the Democrats, like House Speaker John A. Boehner, Peter King, the Republican Representative for New York, and Carolyn McCarthy, the Democrat Representative from New York, to nail the point that the overall public opinion is for the right to bear arms and even the ardent supporters of gun control are afraid of going against the flow of public sentiment. Doing so, the writers do manage a decisive shot by declaring that the supporters for the right to bear arms are well prepared to have a sway in the congress. To put it simply, the overall objective of the writers in this article is to diffuse the public outburst directed around the gun control issue after the Tucson shootings, and to solicit the resignation of the supporters of gun control by citing credible sounding names supportive of the right to bear arms and to brandish the seeming dejection of the leaders supportive of gun control. Yet, it goes without saying that the argumentative structure resorted to be the writers of the article under consideration has pathetically failed in achieving its aim, that is to annihilate the public support for tougher laws pertaining to gun control. The writers seem to be moved by the not so convincing assumption that the supporters of gun control could be swayed by extending big names and personalities. Nowhere the writers have tried to grapple with the issue of gun control in a convincing and logical manner. Their whole intention seems to be to churn out a seemingly matter of fact new article that pretends to furnish a wide range of opinions and sentiments from the salient organizations and political personalities, which tacitly culminate into the belief that the issue of gun control has not managed to evolve into a political hot potato, even after the shocking and devastating Tucson shooting. The objective of the writers is not to convince the supporters of gun control, but rather to frustrate and degrade their ire and sincerity to the cause. In that context, the given article is certainly not a very effective and convincing piece of argumentative writing. At the most it may succeed in impacting the fence sitters associated with the issue of gun control. However, in case of the well informed and discerning supporters of tougher gun control laws, the article would come out as nothing but a shoddy and ill managed piece of propaganda favoring the right to bear arms. The writers could certainly have been more effective with their approach and intentions, if they had resorted to a more convincing and logical approach towards the issue, rather than trying to come out as a pathetically regular and verbose piece aimed at dissuading the support for tougher gun control laws. The writing style resorted to by the writers is not well structured and organized. The article starkly comes out as an amateurish piece of writing that begins with a sympathetic note, but eventually precipitates into boring who is who list of gun control. The lack of logic and moving sentiment in the writing is discernable even at a cursory glance, and it would take a really willing and sincere reader to proceed beyond the first four paragraphs. If one could somehow excuse being discernibly rude, it would not be wrong to say that much of the article is non-corroborating fluff, which rather highlights than concealing the real intentions of the writers. The article miserably fails to come out as a convincing piece of professional journalistic writing. Rather than appealing to the discerning minds of the well informed readers, it merely manages to solicit a whimper by trying to ridicule their judgment in a discernibly juvenile way. Perhaps, the writers could have added to the visual appeal of their article by inserting in a few impressive pics of the intimidating pieces of arms and ammunition, resulting in the sale of a few extra copies accruing from the diehard supporters of the right to bear arms. The overall mood of the article is casual and imbued with a sense of overconfidence that mars the choice of right words. Though very clear about their intentions, nowhere the writers appear to be really trying hard to clinch the deal. The register and language resorted to by the authors are strikingly bland, unable to strike a connection neither with the hearts nor with the minds of the targeted readers, which are the general public supporting tougher gun control laws. The article comes out as being pathetically deficient in the requirements of ethics associated with the issue under consideration. The article fails to give ample voice to the counter views and opinions, thereby turning out to be unimpressively lopsided and biased in its approach. One certainly fails to notice even an iota of credible statistics for or against the issue. The whole focus of the article being aimed at inserting quotations from the politicians and organizations, one certainly cannot fail to pick on a lack of originality or any individuality in the article. The starting paragraph being emotive and engrossing is followed by much that is conspicuously opinionated and prosaic. To put it in simple words, the intention of the article is to sway the public sentiment favoring gun control, against the issue. However, the approach of the writers is amply marred by a lack of creative tact and the absence of logic and any ethical appeal. The style and line of argument is boring and uninteresting, thereby failing to grab the attention of well informed and serious readers. The writers have made very little effort to back their opinion with appropriate craftsmanship, visual appeal, a strong choice of words and positive sentiments. Works Cited Nagourney, Adam & Steinhauer, Jennifer. “A Clamor for Gun Limits, but Few Expect Real Changes”. The New York Times. 13 January 2011. 16 October 2011 < http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/us/14guns.html>. Read More