Author, New York Times writer, and gun owner, Lily Raff McCaulou, in the article, Confessions of a Sensible Gun Owner, published in the New York Times on October 7, 2017, addresses the topic of being a responsible gun owner who also advocates for some types of gun control legislation and argues that gun owners should realize that they should advocate for sensible gun control because it does not mean they will have to give up all of their guns. She supports this claim by establishing herself as a middle ground between gun control and gun rights activists in order to appeal to a wider audience, then by citing statistics such as how many gun owners are not part of the NRA or the number of gun deaths in a year in order to factually prove her points,
…show more content…
For example, the author writes "we’re the bridge that connects the two sides of the chasm in the national debate" (McCaulou 1), labeling their efforts as essentially the heart of a Rogerian argument. Being a gun owner, the author obviously supports gun rights to an extent. However, the author repeatedly mentions statements similar to "common-sense regulation doesn’t mean an end to bearing arms" (McCaulou 1). By taking both sides and presenting why they both make sense, McCaulou is creating a middle ground for both sides to consider her argument. With how polar the debate over gun control is, her Rogerian approach is vital to create any kind of meaningful conversation. Often, gun rights activists will write off gun control arguments because they believe their proponents probably have never even touched a firearm before. Alternatively, gun control advocates will often write off gun owners as gun nuts who are out of touch with reality. In this article, McCaulou demonstrates that she (and many others, as she claims) is neither. In doing so, gun owners would be more open to hearing from a fellow gun owner, with her emphasis on gun safety and her desire to keep guns out of the wrong hands being two things they can relate to. On the other hand, gun control advocates would be more open to consider ideas from someone who not only advocates for gun laws, but someone who could strengthen …show more content…
Until I read this article, I firmly believed that because this debate was so controversial with no middle ground in sight, no work would be done and gun violence would simply be the price Americans paid for freedom. However, McCaulou has shown me that there is a possibility for compromise. Additionally, when she mentioned how her organization does work such as "handing out free gun locks, training doctors to talk to patients about safe firearm storage, [and] offering basic information about guns to the news media so they can report about the issue more accurately", I realized that gun owners like my family can still contribute to the fight against gun violence. I've seen many social media campaigns by companies like Glock that repeatedly encourage owners to secure their weapons to prevent misuse. As a firm believer in the idea that a gun is only as dangerous as the person using it, I have always held fast to my father's advice on gun safety, such as how to store them and how to handle them when on the shooting range. Although I could do the same as McCaulou and advocate for gun control legislation, what I truly learned from this article is that I can fight gun violence without doing so. I would much rather encourage Americans to responsibly store and handle their firearms than lobby in Washington
For example, the author writes "we’re the bridge that connects the two sides of the chasm in the national debate" (McCaulou 1), labeling their efforts as essentially the heart of a Rogerian argument. Being a gun owner, the author obviously supports gun rights to an extent. However, the author repeatedly mentions statements similar to "common-sense regulation doesn’t mean an end to bearing arms" (McCaulou 1). By taking both sides and presenting why they both make sense, McCaulou is creating a middle ground for both sides to consider her argument. With how polar the debate over gun control is, her Rogerian approach is vital to create any kind of meaningful conversation. Often, gun rights activists will write off gun control arguments because they believe their proponents probably have never even touched a firearm before. Alternatively, gun control advocates will often write off gun owners as gun nuts who are out of touch with reality. In this article, McCaulou demonstrates that she (and many others, as she claims) is neither. In doing so, gun owners would be more open to hearing from a fellow gun owner, with her emphasis on gun safety and her desire to keep guns out of the wrong hands being two things they can relate to. On the other hand, gun control advocates would be more open to consider ideas from someone who not only advocates for gun laws, but someone who could strengthen …show more content…
Until I read this article, I firmly believed that because this debate was so controversial with no middle ground in sight, no work would be done and gun violence would simply be the price Americans paid for freedom. However, McCaulou has shown me that there is a possibility for compromise. Additionally, when she mentioned how her organization does work such as "handing out free gun locks, training doctors to talk to patients about safe firearm storage, [and] offering basic information about guns to the news media so they can report about the issue more accurately", I realized that gun owners like my family can still contribute to the fight against gun violence. I've seen many social media campaigns by companies like Glock that repeatedly encourage owners to secure their weapons to prevent misuse. As a firm believer in the idea that a gun is only as dangerous as the person using it, I have always held fast to my father's advice on gun safety, such as how to store them and how to handle them when on the shooting range. Although I could do the same as McCaulou and advocate for gun control legislation, what I truly learned from this article is that I can fight gun violence without doing so. I would much rather encourage Americans to responsibly store and handle their firearms than lobby in Washington