Ryan Brueckner

It feels as if we are trapped in a never-ending cycle. Each and every time a gun violence tragedy takes place in America the divisions redraw themselves as soon as the media airs coverage on the event. Sides angrily respond to statistics about American gun deaths, with the Bill of Rights, as if these things are somehow comparable and then nothing changes. Some people request that all guns be banned, some request that more weapons be allowed. But what are we left with? Even when people try to take a somewhat moderate stance on the issue at hand, they end up getting thrown on to one side or the other. The situation is admittedly difficult to solve, but that isn’t the reason it is not moving forward; the polarity of two imperfect positions is. The conversation engrosses a large number of perspectives, but by looking closer at a few views on either side, everyone can gain better insight to the problem at hand.  

Us versus Them

Truthfully, it shouldn’t take too much inferring to figure out what Phoebe Maltiz Bovy wants in her article “It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them“. Bovy smartly argues that all guns should be banned by making a bold statement that grabs the readers’ attention, and then turning the point of the article into trying to normalize a conversation about banning all guns, through her use of the First Amendment, and calling out the morals of the other side. However, there are a number of moments within the article that raise red flags about the conversation that is currently taking place.

The article quickly develops an “us vs. them mentality”. At numerous points in the article Bovy creates an atmosphere of “There’s all of the right thinking people who agree with myself, and then there’s all of the wrong people who think otherwise”. This occurs in quotes such as when she is addressing the tendency of gun owners to defend their right to own weapons through the 2nd Amendment. “Remember that opponents of abortion aren’t wondering whether they should have a more nuanced view of  abortion because of Roe v. Wade.”.(Bovy). Bovy simply assumes here that she knows exactly what side everyone reading this is on. By making this about more than one issue she contributes to the polarization of the debate by attempting to turn the argument into liberals versus conservatives. This also characterizes her readers in a very specific way and only throws fuel on to the fire, thus further polarizing sides.

Making Them Feel Stupid

Tammy Bruce also quickly lets her feelings be known in her article “Gun Control Won’t End Mass Murder”, featured in the Washington Times. Bruce’s primary reasoning for her title is liberals failed attempts at controlling gun deaths in Chicago, stating many statistics describing the frequent murders by guns in the city.

Bruce also polarizes the sides of the debate. She does this by frequently calling out the ignorance of the opposing side in comments such as “The knee-jerk cravenness of liberals to scrape up their calls for gun-control while demonizing the National Rifle Association (NRA) immediately sucks all the air out of the room, eliminating any discussion or investigation of other foundational forces driving mass violence.” (Bruce) Calling out the other side in this manner does not do anything to alleviate the problem. All it does is cause people who are pro gun control to double down on their beliefs by not giving them any choice but to defend themselves. Making people feel less intelligent by referring to their “knee-jerk craveness” is only going make them want to listen to you less. Calling others out only hurts her rhetorical argument.

If the only thing that some people participating in the conversation are worried about is calling the other side out and making them feel stupider, is the right conversation currently taking place?

Superiority and Sides

The article “How to Win an Argument About Guns”, of Nicolas Kristoff, takes a different approach to talking about gun control. The article is formatted in such a way that the author, who supports restricting gun ownership, is responding to common inquiries and arguments that he believes pro gun ownership supporters use. Using relevant facts and comparisons, Kristoff makes many well thought out points to support his claim. He only fails by making too many assumptions and insulting the other side, thus further differentiating the voices in the debate.

From a factual standpoint Kristoff writes a strong article. He uses many facts to back up his opinion that guns need more restrictions. In response to a supposed common pro gun ownership argument, that the 2nd Amendment upholds the right to own guns, Kristoff writes ” There is no constitutional objection to, say, universal background checks to obtain a gun. It’s crazy that 22 percent of guns are obtained without a check”. This among other statistics does a fantastic job of bolstering Kristoff logical appeal. The reader truly feels that Kristoff knows what it is he is talking about.

Kristoff only fails when it comes to the condescending tone that he maintains throughout his entire writing. He begins multiple of his italicized “arguments made by gun advocates”, with the phrase “You liberals…”. (Kristoff) This implies that gun advocates are unable to correctly create grammatically sound sentences. Phrases like this attempt to make the opposing side sound stupider, as if they are somehow less intelligent because they believe in something other than the author’s opinion within a highly controversial debate, that features extremely intelligent people on both sides.

Phrasing such as this has ramifications on readers from both sides of the discourse. If Kristoff is speaking to gun advocates with this phrasing, then all he has accomplished is essentially calling them stupid, making them more likely to discredit anything that he is saying within their own minds, as well as making them less likely to change their opinions on the matter. Also, questioning someone’s intelligence typically leads to most people becoming angry and defensive, further splitting the debate. Changing two words could help gun advocates understand what is otherwise a generally responsible argument, possibly recasting opinions. It also polarizes liberals by creating a superiority complex within their side, making them think they are above the conversation with “stupid other side.”

Not Listening

Lastly, David French, in his article “Why the Left Won’t Win the Gun Control Debate”, supports his title through the supports his article by stating his right to his individual liberties and how this applies to the gun control debate. French powerfully appeals pathetically, but comes up short when attempting to invalidate the the other sides claims.

French appeals pathetically through quotes such as “Because it’s hard to persuade any man or woman to surrender an unalienable right — especially when exercising that right helps preserve the most vital right of all, the right to live.”. Quotes like this help the reader to relate to what French is saying, because everyone believes that people should have a right to live, thus appealing to emotions and strengthening the argument.

However, French fails to recognize the other side of the debate. He makes serious assumptions such as “Finally, if there’s a concession that in your circumstance it’s reasonable to own a gun, then critics will immediately tell you exactly what kind of gun you “need” for self-defense.” (French) French decides that he knows exactly what the other side of the debate is going to respond with. This can quickly turn readers away from his opinion. It makes it seem as French would not even listen to pro gun control supporters if they tried to talk to him. Do we really want people who refuse to listen to be a part of the debate? If we’re only willing to listen to like minded people on the issue, how can we expect anything less than to end up with isolated, non-negotiable beliefs?

There will always be controversial issues being discussed in the world. How can we ever expect to solve them if the conversation is not taking place in the right way? Establishing alienated sides, making the opposition feel less intelligent or inferior, and refusing to listen to what they say will only further polarize sides. At some point we all need to stop and ask ourselves- Are we having the conversation that we deserve?

Works Cited:

Bovy, Phoebe Maltz. “It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.” The New Republic, 10 Dec. 2015, newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them.

French, David. “Why the Left Won’t Win the Gun-Control Debate.” National Review, National Review, 6 Mar. 2018, http://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/gun-control-debate-liberals-wont-win-heres-why/.

Kristof, Nicholas. “How to Win an Argument About Guns.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Apr. 2018, http://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/opinion/gun-control-youtube-shooting.html.

“Tammy Bruce: Why Gun Control Won’t End Mass Murder.” Fox News, FOX News Network, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tammy-bruce-why-gun-control-wont-end-mass-murder.