In light of the recent Sandy Hook and Chapel Hill shootings, the politically charged gun control debate has once again been brought to public attention. Change of some variety is paramount, as violent tragedies like these should not be accepted as the norm. However, both politicians and civilians dispute over the form that this solution should take. Are stricter gun control laws the answer? Jill LePore and Charles C. W. Cooke each answer this question in their articles, “Battleground America” and “Gun-Control Dishonesty”, respectively. LePore writes for The New Yorker, a well-known liberal magazine, and addresses an educated, liberal audience. Cooke, on the other hand, is a writer for the conservative National Review. Although both publishers
…show more content…
He acknowledges and validates the worry for safety given by liberal politicians, but qualifies the argument by disputing the claim that violence rates would be lower had stricter gun control laws been in place. He continues on to state the last ten shootings (between 1999 and 2012), and the facts about the shooters’ use of guns. All guns used in these shootings were either purchased legally, or stolen or altered in a way that was outside government control (Cooke). Logically, it seems to be clear that background checks and other gun restrictions don’t necessarily weed out the possibility of shootings, when many of them in the past have been first time offenders. For the readers of the National Review, the vast majority of which are conservatives, this is exactly what they want to hear. This is confirmation that their stance on gun control is the correct one. Cooke is not the only one to appeal to reason, however, as LePore also did her research. She discusses the National Rifle Association and it’s President, David Keene, at length. She poses the question of whether the N.R.A. has negatively influenced the public, pointing out that even Keene’s son is serving time for firing a handgun at another vehicle in a road rage incident (LePore). She goes on to argue that easy access to handguns is one of the contributing factors to the United States’ high violence rates. …show more content…
At an appointment at the American Firearms School, LePore takes a firearm safety class to get a better understanding of a gun advocates position. She states that her instructor Tom Dietzel was very aware of the danger of guns, and took every precaution to ensure the safety of the clients and staff (LePore). Her statistics even show that the majority of both members and non-members of the NRA favored gun safety regulations, showing clearly that it is understood that guns are not toys to be taken lightly. Cooke does acknowledge the counterargument, but disregards it as folly, saying, “The Left’s knee-jerk reaction to gun violence represents quite the opposite of forward thinking, based as it is on fear, superstition, and good old-fashioned ignorance,” (Cooke). This attempt to question the liberal stance is not backed up with any significant evidence, and falls short of making a lasting impression on the reader’s opinion. Evidently, Jill LePore’s article is the more persuasive of the two articles, if not for the emotional and logical response alone, then for her attention to the details of both sides of the argument. Although Cooke’s article tries to make a persuasive point, it merely succeeds in being a poorly researched opinion piece with very little foundation to stand
He acknowledges and validates the worry for safety given by liberal politicians, but qualifies the argument by disputing the claim that violence rates would be lower had stricter gun control laws been in place. He continues on to state the last ten shootings (between 1999 and 2012), and the facts about the shooters’ use of guns. All guns used in these shootings were either purchased legally, or stolen or altered in a way that was outside government control (Cooke). Logically, it seems to be clear that background checks and other gun restrictions don’t necessarily weed out the possibility of shootings, when many of them in the past have been first time offenders. For the readers of the National Review, the vast majority of which are conservatives, this is exactly what they want to hear. This is confirmation that their stance on gun control is the correct one. Cooke is not the only one to appeal to reason, however, as LePore also did her research. She discusses the National Rifle Association and it’s President, David Keene, at length. She poses the question of whether the N.R.A. has negatively influenced the public, pointing out that even Keene’s son is serving time for firing a handgun at another vehicle in a road rage incident (LePore). She goes on to argue that easy access to handguns is one of the contributing factors to the United States’ high violence rates. …show more content…
At an appointment at the American Firearms School, LePore takes a firearm safety class to get a better understanding of a gun advocates position. She states that her instructor Tom Dietzel was very aware of the danger of guns, and took every precaution to ensure the safety of the clients and staff (LePore). Her statistics even show that the majority of both members and non-members of the NRA favored gun safety regulations, showing clearly that it is understood that guns are not toys to be taken lightly. Cooke does acknowledge the counterargument, but disregards it as folly, saying, “The Left’s knee-jerk reaction to gun violence represents quite the opposite of forward thinking, based as it is on fear, superstition, and good old-fashioned ignorance,” (Cooke). This attempt to question the liberal stance is not backed up with any significant evidence, and falls short of making a lasting impression on the reader’s opinion. Evidently, Jill LePore’s article is the more persuasive of the two articles, if not for the emotional and logical response alone, then for her attention to the details of both sides of the argument. Although Cooke’s article tries to make a persuasive point, it merely succeeds in being a poorly researched opinion piece with very little foundation to stand