Argumentative Essay: The Editorial Board Of The Chicago Tribune

Everyone in the United States has the right to bear arms, thanks to the Second Amendment to the Constitution. But should everyone have this right? The Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune believes that people with a severe mental illness should be excluded from this right, in order to ensure the safety of the general public. They are responding to the House of Representatives’ recent decision to remove the rule that banned gun ownership of people who qualified for Social Security disability insurance due to mental health. They attempt to convince the readers of the Chicago Tribune, both liberals and conservatives, that this rule should remain, and that the Senate should not back up the House’s decision. To strengthen their argument, they use solid examples, lengthy and informative syntax, and facts, …show more content…
They recount the crimes of Seung Hui Cho, Jared Loughner, James Holmes, and Adam Lanza. All of these people went out in public and shot people, all due to psychological issues. The Editorial Board argues that if the gun rule had existed at this time, it could have prevented these shootings. By providing these examples, they appeal to credibility, sympathy, and fear. They know that everyone wants a stop to these mass shootings, and they are providing a solution for that. It would be wrong for anyone to think otherwise. The examples reveal the drastic effects of allowing mentally ill people to have guns, and it makes you realize that this rule would possibly put a stop to it. The Editorial Board believes that something must be done in order to end the shootings in America, and attempts to resolve this issue through the reserving of Obama’s gun-control rule. If we had only slightly stricter gun-control laws, preventing mentally ill people from bearing firearms, we could end this epidemic of mass