Professor and Student in aGgun-Fight within the University - Essay Example

Professor and student in a gun-fight within the university Introduction The rhetorical analysis below is based on a text written by Greg Hampikian. Hampikian is a professor of biology and criminal science, at the Boise State University. He has also co-authored the “Exit to Freedom”. In this particular text, Hampikian has the Idaho’s State Legislature as his audience. He is writing the text to express his opinion on the bill proposing that students and professors should carry guns to campus. He sounds confused about the motive of the bill and determined to get a clear understanding of when he can engage a student in a gun-fight. The House of Representatives is just about to pass the bill, thus coming into a recognized policy. Hampikian sounds startled by the proposed law and in an amusing way, asks when he can shoot a student. Hampikian is interested in getting the bill approved though he is also considering the adverse effects that the policy is likely to have. Is it not a perplexing situation to see a lecturer pointing his/her gun to a student? And what happens when the student draws his gun in self-defense? Discussion Hampikian’s credibility is well established when he seeks legal instruction on what the rules of engagement in class will be once the students and professors start carrying guns to school. He invites dialog between the stakeholders both at the state level and the Boise University. According to him, it seems quite strange for a lecturer to carry a gun to his place of work, since his responsibility is dealing with students only. He expresses this as a matter of practical concern. He is, however, accommodative of the change. He has no problems with the students carrying guns. He is currently acknowledging the fact that even right now, the students can still fight back using their pencils, when totally disgruntled, although he has no fears for the pencil since he always carries his pen as well. His credibility is further shown by the position he holds at the university. He is a professor of biology at the same university. This shows his credibility in that he appreciates the students’ rights to defend themselves when necessary (Hampikian para 3). According to the author, permitting guns to campus will have an effect on the ethics and the organizational culture of the institution. Ethics refer to the norms followed in a particular organization. They define the conduct of conduct by all the players in the particular organization. Concerned with the ethics of the university and the Idaho State at large, Hampikian prompts the Legislators to consider the repercussions of minor engagements that normally arise when students are carrying out their daily activities at the university, before making their final decision. Could the guns be a source of havoc? For instance, when the students are buying drinks at the café and start competing to be served first. He tries to suggest that the professors might find themselves in cross-fire with the students. The professors might be forced to use guns to stop the fighting students (Hampikian para 4). Sanity is essential if the institution is to effectively carry out its mandate without frictions. The author addresses the issue of sanity at the universities within the entire State.He emphasizes the need for a peaceful co-existence between the professors and their students. He agrees with the fact that he is a professor, and for this reason, cannot imagine carrying a gun to his place of work, unlike a lawyer who needs the gun as a basic tool of work. He suggests that a gun might provoke different reactions by the students, further complicating his work. He gives an example of a scenario of the students correcting him on the board using their guns. In confusion, he poses this rhetorical question, “…..am I allowed to fire a warning shot?” (Hampikian para 5). What is the relevance of the new policy? The author tries to evaluate the logic of the new policy. He brings to the attention of the audience that other players like the city police are also concerned about the issue of students carrying guns to campus. Their concern could be attributed to their fear of the potential havoc caused by the guns in the hands of the students. There, however, seems to be a disagreement between the author and the chief of police on the issue. The author stands on his ground that the police chief should not intimidate the legislators in their effort to pass the bill since he already has his gun. This brings out the disagreements that normally arise whenever a new law is just about to be implemented. The two parties, representing their counterparts, draw the picture of a divided society, each guided by their interests. This is shown when the author states that he was thrilled by the fact that the police chief was denied a chance to speak at the public hearing on the bill. The author maintains his position by urging the legislators, not to be intimidated by the police chief. This is shown by his compliment to the legislator for having allowed the spokesman of the National Rifle Association a 40 minutes opportunity to address the public (Hampikian para 7). There are pathetic appeals portrayed in the text. This is shown by the campus presidents and the law enforcement officials who appear divided on the matter, as portrayed by the author. The reactions of the opposition are clearly shown in the text. In any society, it is common to have two groups taking sides. Resistance to the move is further being fuelled by some university lectures. Their claims are that firearms are being encouraged within a densely populated area of young people with all bad mannerisms such as alcohol and drug experimentation as well as commission of felonies. It is at this point that Hampikian describes the outcries of the opposition. He however, seems to dismiss their claims as lame excuses. The society described by the author, in this case, seems to have a negative attitude towards drunken frat boys for no good reasons. The main problem is not that they are armed but simply because they are drunk. The blame, however, lacks validity from the fact that one can cause damage whether armed or unarmed. His assertion shows his disregard for the petty claims of the opposition (Hampikian para 9). The author here makes good use of diction. Careful choice of words enables the author to craft his message well. For instance, he starts by pointing out that at present, there are no murder cases reported. The author is, however, quick to challenge the notion that guns might lead to an increased murder cases at the university. He asserts that guns cannot be blamed for killing people. Hampikian claims “……I think that we can all agree that guns don’t kill people, people with guns do…” (Hampikian para 10). He strongly defends the move to allow guns in the universities, because he deeply believes in the course. He reinforces his support with the fact that there are limited number of guns in Britain, a reason most bad guys seek refuge there. It is interesting to learn that even the British cops themselves don’t carry guns. To prove his argument, he comments that gun deaths in Britain are a very tiny fraction of the same in the U.S. His argument is that if more guns are introduced in the U.S, the criminals will relocate to other places (Hampikian para 10). The author has successfully maintained an argumentative tone throughout the text. Focusing more on the group against the permitting of the bill, he tries to bring out its potential success if put into practice. According to him, those opposing it have a misconception that the students cannot make responsible use of their guns. He insists that the same students have grown up learning all about responsible weapon use via virtual means such as PlayStation. He comes to the defense of the students by arguing that they will not be shooting carelessly but will instead be using the guns to hone their skills in responsible defense (para 12). Expressing a vast knowledge of armed students, the reader can only remain in awe of the author’s craftsmanship of supporting the bill. It suffices to say that even those who were previously opposing the bill will come to appreciate and accept it after scrutiny of the Hampikian’s argument. He winds up the argument by expressing his full support for the bill and commending the Legislature for initiating the move to arm the students (Hampikian para 13). Conclusion Doing a critical analysis of the entire text by Greg Hampikian, it can be revealed that he has been successful in showing both sides of the argument. At the beginning of the text, the audience could have gotten the impression that the author was against the bill. His stand was quite unclear as he takes the audience from the challenges of the implementation of the bill to its effectiveness. To achieve this he has employed styles such as the satirical mood which has been illustrated in some parts of the work. The mood is well expressed in his comparison of the U.S with Britain. He comments that cops in Britain do not even carry guns, and yet there are just a few cases of gun crime. It is ironical that U.S has the highest number of gun-related crimes, and yet there are guns all over. Criminals will tend to seek refuge in areas where there are few guns and thus arming the students will drive away the criminals to Britain. The issue of carrying guns to colleges and universities has however raised concerns especially amongst the chief of police who is reluctant to buy the idea. The author is manipulative in his expression of ideas. He starts the argument by disapproving the idea of arming the students with guns, the suggesting that it might endanger their work as lecturers. He portrays students as responsible citizens who have a sound knowledge of using guns responsibly, unlike what some of his colleagues perceive. The text has therefore a balanced argument. Work cited Hampikian, Greg. "When May I Shoot a Student?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 6 Feb. 2015. . Read More