Evan Clauss
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
In America the debate about gun control seems very clear. One side wants gun regulation which includes background checks, age limits, and bans on certain guns. The other side wants gun legislation to remain largely unchanged or even weakened. To the casual observer in this debate it would seem like a very clear “cookie cutter” debate. This is not the case however. The debate on guns in America and regulation on guns goes much deeper than simply one side wants more control and one side wants less. The debate on guns goes back to the founding of our country and what rights mean the most to our citizens and which historical values remain important to Americans. This debate is a battle of America’s most prominent values including small government vs big government, authoritarian vs individualists, and the rights of an individual vs the rights of a group.
The Background
Typically, liberals, or those who lean left of center, wish to ban guns or increase regulations. Many left leaning states, counties, or towns have no problem enforcing bans on certain guns such as the AR-15 or certain handguns they have deemed “unfit for civilian ownership”. Under the guise of “keeping guns off the streets” they have successfully installed, what many would consider, and authoritarian government. This is why the debate about guns is such a hot button issue for many voters, gun regulation by definition means a stronger and more powerful central government. Not to say that is a bad thing, but for many Americans small government and individual freedom is their “hill to die on”.
The Debate
Guns are in the news everyday. It seems like once a week there’s a mass shooting. The news people hear and read about gun rights certainly has an effect on what they view as an effective solution to the gun problem. Typically people seek the news that they want to hear, and in the case of gun control that is no different. Most republicans or people that believe in less restrictive gun control will read a news source that agrees with them. It goes the same way for Democrats or people who want more gun control. The news is just an echo chamber for your own beliefs but it is important to see what the underlying argument for or against gun control is. Both sides of this argument will use the appeals to try to sway people into believing they are correct and both sides are very effective at it. Sources that call for more gun control use pathos masterfully get their point across.
Kristoff
“without the weapons of mass murder, 50 New Zealand worshipers would still be alive; 17 Parkland, Fla., schoolchildren and staff members would still be alive; nine Charleston, S.C., churchgoers would still be alive; 11 Pittsburgh congregants would still be alive; 58 Las Vegas concert goers would still be alive; 26 Newtown, Conn., first graders and adults would”
This style of reporting allows people who support gun control to “bury their head in the sand” and makes the case for banning guns even stronger. The “buzzwords” used by supporter of gun control also are used to inspire fear whether regardless of what the facts say. The tone used in this article paints gun owners as the bad guys. It’s impossible to convince someone that you should be able to own a “weapon of mass murder” and referring to certain guns as such is an attempt by the author to minimize the argument gun owners put forward. Any argument for owning an AR-15 is unwinnable if your opponent views the gun as a “weapon of mass murder”.
In addition to labeling AR-15s weapons of mass murder, gun control supporters have another popular technique to try to rally support for their cause. They paint gun owners with the same broad brush. While suggesting more gun control that many people oppose the writer of this piece said this:
Glanton
What he said was perfectly reasonable. And it would seem that no reasonable person, regardless of their stance on firearms, would have issue with any of it”
By suggesting that no reasonable person could oppose these gun control measures, the author is clearly saying people who do not want gun control are not reasonable. The author also makes the point that the ranks of gun control opposers have been filled with racists as well as bigots. This holier than thou attitude allows those who support gun control to dismiss any argument made against gun control by being convinced that the person is unreasonable, racist or a bigot.
After reading or hearing any opinion on gun control it can be difficult to figure out exactly the underlying message of that piece as well as the previously unforeseen consequences of the suggested action. The supporters of gun control want a bigger and more controlling government but they sell it by using pathos and other techniques to make it less obvious that they want to restrict individual freedom. Their use of pathos is the “sugar to make the medicine go down”. Reading this article they call for several steps to reduce gun violence including, more background checks, a federal registry, red flag laws, laws that dictate how your gun is stored, and limiting the amount of guns someone can buy.
All of this is said to reduce gun violence, and it may, however the underlying theme is abandoning the rights and freedoms that this country was founded on for an updated model of freedom. All of these suggestions require more regulations, more laws, and the tradeoff to that is less freedom. The supporters of gun control value the safety of the group more than they value the rights of individuals which is a fairly new idea in American politics. This piece is very subtle when it comes to talking about restricting rights because they are discussing guns. However when you apply what they are suggesting to another topic, such as automobiles, it becomes very clear. Imagine if someone suggested regulating how you can store your car, how many cars you can buy, background checks for buying cars and so on. The true message of the piece is much easier to decipher when you apply it to something else.
From across the aisle there is the viewpoint of less gun control or no more changes. The main themes of those articles are just as difficult to find but under closer examination they reveal themselves. In this article the main ideas behind most gun control movements are dissected and discussed. The writer uses the appeals to support his viewpoint.
Lott
“Banning all semi-automatic guns would endanger lives”
The writer is using pathos to appeal to the emotions of the reader and supports it with data to form their argument. This articles theme is more freedom. The writer does not want the government to have more power, he believes it already has enough. This viewpoint runs parallel to the traditionalist “god given rights” viewpoint. This article is written by someone who values our historic rights and does not want to change them. This seems to be the theme of most people who oppose gun control. They value individual freedom and less government more than they value what the gun control supporters typically call “the right to live” and a broad, powerful government.
When combined the rhetoric of those who support gun control is overwhelmingly filled with name calling and heartbreaking appeals while the opponents of gun control stick mostly to facts and data. All of this debate can be boiled down into one simple question, that’s prevalent throughout the entire discussion, that all of us should ask ourselves.
Do you want the government to tell you what to do?
Works Cited
Glanton, Dahleen. “Racism and the Gun Rights Movement: Too Close for Comfort.” Chicagotribune.com, 29 Jan. 2019, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-met-dahleen-glanton-guns-racism-20190128-story.html.
Kristof, Nicholas. “10 Modest Steps to Cut Gun Violence.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 May 2018, http://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/opinion/texas-shooting-guns.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article.
Kristof, Nicholas. “New Zealand Shows the U.S. What Leadership Looks Like.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Mar. 2019, http://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/opinion/new-zealand-gun-control.html?rref=collection/timestopic/Gun Control&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=collection.
“March for Our Lives: Gun Control Ideas Sound Good, but Are Deeply Flawed and Won’t Save Lives.” Fox News, FOX News Network, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/march-for-our-lives-gun-control-ideas-sound-good-but-are-deeply-flawed-and-wont-save-lives.
Cosner Rhetoric 