In this essay, I will analyze two articles presenting arguments concerning gun rights. The first article will rely almost exclusively on pathos in order to persuade the intended audience. The other article will rely principally on logic. Both articles present effective arguments, and both articles are well-written. The article that relies are pathos is more persuasive while the article focusing on logos has more credibility.
When someone mentions the American Sniper, a picture is brought to memory of a man well-trained in the military with firearms. Likely a thought will also arise concerning his tragic death, which also involved a firearm. The title of the article is ‘American Sniper’ widow: Gun control won’t protect us. Tara Kyle, the wife of the American Sniper, wrote this article advocating gun rights. There is a certain appeal to the article simply because she is the author and her story is well known. She uses her status as the wife of the American sniper to boost her credibility. Since she was personally touched by gun violence, her credibility may be higher than just anyone writing on article on gun rights.
Kyle’s article is organized like a typical essay with an introduction, body and conclusion. In her introduction, she introduces herself and her reasons for presenting the article. In the body of the article, she provides subheadings for each main point she discusses. And, she concludes the article appropriately by summing up her main points and reinforcing her introduction.
Kyle’s main argument for gun rights is that those who murder will do so whether there are gun laws or not. Her motivation in presenting her story is so that others can see that evil is the problem, not guns. Kyle presents her article informally, and begins by notifying the audience that she understands both sides of the issue for gun control. Immediately, she attempts to pull advocates and proponents into her article. She proceeds to speak of her personal story and makes a strong appeal to emotion. In the next paragraph, she mentions facts and statistics likely to appeal to or persuade those not touched by the pathos.
Kyle discusses human nature and our tendencies to vulnerability and those who have evil within them. She discusses freedom; another appeal to ethos. She argues that only a few use guns to kill and legislating all others would not be right. She claims that those individuals who commit evil acts, do so because of a mental or drug problem. Then she claims, “we can’t legislate human nature”. Kyle says society needs to focus on the issues causing individuals to use guns not on guns themselves. Government can’t protect us, she announces.
Kyle makes a comparison of taking guns away from everyone to taking a car away from a potential future drunk driver or castrating future rapists. This comparison does not seem to fit in with the rest of the article except that it is an appeal to emotion. Her article is an expression of her opinion and is presented to persuade her audience. She does not have credibility as a gun advocate but can gain such credibility due to her marriage to the American Sniper. Overall, this was an effective article. Goldberg’s article, on the other hand, is a bit more effective because it uses less pathos and more ethos and logos.
Jeffrey Goldberg, in his article, The Case for More Guns (and More Gun Control, communicates his opinion concerning gun rights using a very different approach than Kyle. The only similarity between the two articles is that they are both presented within prominent news sources. The first noticeable difference is that we do not know who Jeffrey Goldberg is. From reading the article, the assumption could be made that he is a journalist, but there is no other indication as to who he is or what title he holds. This turns out to be effective in the presentation of this article, and completely opposite of the Kyle article.
Goldberg does not follow the typical format of an essay with introduction, body and conclusion. He introduces his article as an interview, and it appeared as though the entire article would be presented in that manner. Yet, surprisingly in the middle of the article, and near the end of the article, he presents his own opinions. The article was very easy to follow even with these variations. Goldberg also presented his article in a more formal manner, which gave the article greater credibility. Goldberg’s audience, much like that of Kyles, could be both advocates and opponents of gun rights. However, it would seem that Goldberg intended his readers to be more educated with his extensive use of logos.
Goldberg’s introduction grabs the reader’s attention by describing a scene where the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting occurred. Goldberg then discusses an interview with a victim of the crime. Then, he takes us to Denver where he meets with the father of a victim of the Columbine shooting, and tells us of the father becoming a gun control activists. In doing this, Goldberg provides the reader with a curiosity and desire to continue reading. He does this while playing on emotions as well.
The article continued as anticipated, and then takes a dramatic turn. It almost appeared on the surface as a play on pathos, but really it was the use of logos that made it effective. Goldberg suggests if one method of reducing gun violence is not working, maybe another method, although seemingly extreme, could provide a solution. Goldberg claims it is too late to remove guns from Americans because there are too many. This is logical. The article then switches from interviewing those who oppose gun rights to a discussion with those favoring gun rights.
Goldberg interviews a mayor, an attorney and cites a law professor who authored a book about gun rights. Each provide their reasons for supporting gun rights. It seemed that in doing this, Goldberg attained more credibility to his article as a whole. Goldberg also provided statistics throughout this area of the article. He uses logos very effectively at this point in the article. With the use of the opinions of professionals and politicians, Goldberg provides readers who may have been unimpressed with the opinions of victims of gun violence, with assurance that his article is credible.
When Goldberg delivers his own opinion, he presents it in a way that gives him credibility as it mentions his own experience. By presenting his opinion with a personal experience, he effectively uses pathos. It seems that writers gain more credibility from readers when they provide them with their own firsthand experience with an issue.
Goldberg concludes his article by suggesting that opponents and proponents should come to a middle ground. He presented both sides throughout his article and gave credence to each. He was very effective in not judging either opinion. Although his opinion appears to be in the middle of the road, it seems that advocates of gun rights would classify him as an opponent. Those who support gun rights do not support many of his suggestions he makes at the end of the article. Thus, his article opposes gun rights, while Kyle’s article supported gun rights.
Gun rights is a very contentious topic in today’s society. Both writers presented their positions in very professional manners. Kyle’s article was more personal and informal, while Goldberg presented his article more formally, as a journalist. Ironically, Kyle’s article was written in a more formal manner, following the typical essay formal and providing subheadings. Goldberg’s article, although not difficult to follow, was written in a very different format. He presented one side of the argument, mentioned his own opinion, then presented the other side of the argument, while concluding with his own suggestions and opinions. This was a less formal format but the content was more formal. Goldberg’s articles used logos almost predominantly throughout and positioned pathos intermittently, likely to keep the reader’s attention.
The way in which the authors gained credibility was completely different, yet both were effective. Kyle has instant credibility because her husband was the American Sniper. It was a very clever move to use the American Sniper name in the title of the article as it likely pulled in more readers. Goldberg’s title is also interesting and likely grabbed the attention of readers as well. Both writers conclude their articles strongly. Kyle, still grabbing emotions, mentions freedom; another clever use of words considering her husband. Goldberg, logically, provides suggestions to solve the debate.
Although the articles were written with distinctively different structures, both presented their arguments in effective ways. The styles of the articles were different, likely because the intended audiences were different. It seems that arguments that rely on pathos are more effective, and arguments that rely on logos are more credible. In either case, both articles were well-written and effectively made the point the author intended.
References
Goldberg, Jeffrey. The Case for More Guns (and More Gun Control). December 2012. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/>.
Kyle, Taya. 'American Sniper' widow: Gun control won't protect us. 8 January 2016. <http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/opinions/taya-kyle-gun-control/>.
