In an Article posted by USA Today, the author reports on a recent shooting and mass murder that occurred in New Zealand on March 15. The gunman shot and killed 50 innocent people worshipping at a mosque. The author takes note that guns have played an important role in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, however, he says that the similarity ends there. He mentions the many shootings that have taken place in the U.S. and compares the reactions of Congress to the reactions of the Prime Ministers. The author is disappointed in America and mentions that when something like this happens in New Zealand or Australia, they immediately take care of the situation and change their laws concerning guns, but when it happens in America, “the default response by American politicians, particularly on the right, is to offer thoughts and prayers — but no meaningful action” (USA Today).
The author’s main goal is to highlight the rapid reform in other countries, and point out how the U.S. is reluctant to put restrictions on guns. All it took was one shooting for the Prime Minister to call for a change. Winston Peter, New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister (and opponent of gun control) mentions that “after 1 p.m. on the 15th of March (when the mosque shootings occurred), our world changed forever, and so will some of our laws” (USA Today). This is an example of pathos. The author includes this quote from Winston Peter in order to evoke an emotional response. For many readers, this may make them feel sorrowful, but for others, it could anger them. The quote accomplishes the author’s goal by showing how rapidly the Prime Minister was to act. Another rhetorical device that the author uses is his diction. It is apparent that the author is for better gun control and wishes to persuade the reader to see it how he does. He uses words such as “assault-style weapons”, “massacres”, and “tragedy” in order to show his position on gun control. By doing this, he illustrates the devastating effects that guns can have on Americans. Not only does he use rhetoric to achieve his purpose, he also does this respectfully, keeping in mind the other side. He understands that this is a hot topic and he must be sensitive to it. He mentions the opposition by saying, “gun-control opponents argue that a fundamental difference between America and other nations is the Second Amendment right to bear arms. But as the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, it is ‘not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose’ ” (USA Today).
After reading this, I completely agree with the author. I am aware that the issue in America with gun control can be a hot button topic, but regardless, I believe that it must be talked about. The reality is that, without advocates for stricter background checks and licensing, tragedies like those of the Las Vegas concert, the Florida High School, or the Orlando night club would keep happening. I like how the author compared the U.S. to other countries. By doing this, he proved that change can be done. I was not aware that the Prime Minister, a man who is for guns, changed New Zealand’s law so quickly. He is a good example of a man who put his beliefs behind him for the good of the country. For me, I have always been an advocate for stricter gun control laws, however one example that makes me believe this is my neighbor. I live next door to a lovely lady who was at the Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas when Stephen Paddock open fired on the crowd of concertgoers. This killed 58 people and left 851 injured. Fortunately, my neighbor was not injured, but knew friends that were. When she came home, she was not in good condition, mentally. Seeing this made me so sad and upset for her, and that nothing was done to prevent future tragedies. For this reason, and others, this is why I agreed with the author. He made very insightful points about his opinion and said it very respectfully.
grace's blog 