Gun control in America is a significant issue, with an average of 91 gun related deaths per day, it is a matter that can no longer be ignored. Being controversial in its nature, author Phoebe Maltz Bovy doesn 't hesitate to shed light on her opinion on the affair. In her article “It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.” Bovy is quick to state that all guns are bad regardless of their purpose or the respective owner, that they’re all nothing more than dangerous machines. However, in her approach, she is so busy furiously voicing her opinion of hatred towards guns, that she lacks a scholarly approach. Her most prominent issue is her lack of a thesis statement, then followed by her unorganized paragraph structure, and lastly her absence of evidence to support her claim.
In her opening paragraph Bovy goes into detail about how all guns should be banned. “Get rid of gun in homes, on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police”. She goes on to say that regardless of the gun type or owner that they should be removed, banned, and revolked from their owners to the greatest extent possible. No person, unconditional to how responsible or knowledge about guns they are, should be in ownership of such a weapon. The risk of harm is simply too high. Though I agree with her statements that risk of harm is always a factor and is inevitably high when a gun is involved, she blatantly ignores the common idea of a thesis. A thesis is a core ingredient in the recipe of a good article. An author 's thesis tells the reader what to predict from the following article, and sets a solid claim and foundation for the article to follow. Without this the work simply crumbles into an unorganized mess, which leads to my next area of critique. Her organization. Bovy’s organizing skills are inferior to say the least. Her paragraphs dramatically flip flop back and forth. Hopping from subjects like fear of getting shot, to the supreme court and the second amendment, to roe vs wade which has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever. Her paucity of organization is appalling, as a writer it is important to consider organization and style into one 's work, as this work is reflective of one 's self. In one paragraph she writes “As if gun ownership were simply a cultural tradition to be respected, and not, you know, about owning guns. Guns… I mean, must it really be spelled out what’s different? It’s absurd to reduce an anti-gun position to a snooty aesthetic preference.” But this …show more content…
Her entire article consists of her opinion and her attempts to support her opinion with more of her opinions. But in the real world, people are interested in cold hard facts. Never once does she bring up a statistic, survey, or number of any sort. She attempts to make up for this lack of evidence with informalities. Speaking to the reader directly and asking questions in order to convince the reader that what she 's saying is true. For example, she writes “As if gun ownership were simply a cultural tradition to be respected, and not, you know, about owning guns. Guns… I mean, must it really be spelled out what’s different?”. This type of informalities, while it may make the reader feel closer to the author, does not give any form of evidence to support what the author is
In her opening paragraph Bovy goes into detail about how all guns should be banned. “Get rid of gun in homes, on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police”. She goes on to say that regardless of the gun type or owner that they should be removed, banned, and revolked from their owners to the greatest extent possible. No person, unconditional to how responsible or knowledge about guns they are, should be in ownership of such a weapon. The risk of harm is simply too high. Though I agree with her statements that risk of harm is always a factor and is inevitably high when a gun is involved, she blatantly ignores the common idea of a thesis. A thesis is a core ingredient in the recipe of a good article. An author 's thesis tells the reader what to predict from the following article, and sets a solid claim and foundation for the article to follow. Without this the work simply crumbles into an unorganized mess, which leads to my next area of critique. Her organization. Bovy’s organizing skills are inferior to say the least. Her paragraphs dramatically flip flop back and forth. Hopping from subjects like fear of getting shot, to the supreme court and the second amendment, to roe vs wade which has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever. Her paucity of organization is appalling, as a writer it is important to consider organization and style into one 's work, as this work is reflective of one 's self. In one paragraph she writes “As if gun ownership were simply a cultural tradition to be respected, and not, you know, about owning guns. Guns… I mean, must it really be spelled out what’s different? It’s absurd to reduce an anti-gun position to a snooty aesthetic preference.” But this …show more content…
Her entire article consists of her opinion and her attempts to support her opinion with more of her opinions. But in the real world, people are interested in cold hard facts. Never once does she bring up a statistic, survey, or number of any sort. She attempts to make up for this lack of evidence with informalities. Speaking to the reader directly and asking questions in order to convince the reader that what she 's saying is true. For example, she writes “As if gun ownership were simply a cultural tradition to be respected, and not, you know, about owning guns. Guns… I mean, must it really be spelled out what’s different?”. This type of informalities, while it may make the reader feel closer to the author, does not give any form of evidence to support what the author is