A common battleground between political parties, gun control, has been a topic argued by both sides. Charles C. W. Cooke and Adam Gopnik both write about this topic, but argue from vastly different sides, Gopnik from the left side and Cooke on the far right. Cooke’s article “Gun- Control Dishonesty” and Gopnik’s article “Shooting” aim to attack and persuade the opposite side to act or simply not to. Upon reading the articles, the reader can note two drastically different approaches. The use of facts and logic has been and always will be one of the most influential tools for persuasion. Cooke’s pages state facts like, “In April 2012, Jack England and Alvin Watts killed three black men… The guns they used were legally owned”
…show more content…
Cooke focuses his argument on the Sandy Hook shooting, a delicate topic for many. Cooke does not target the emotions of people as his emotion comes in the facts about the killings. On the contrary, Gopnik uses emotions as a childish attempt to guilt the reader into siding with him, first seen as he paints a dreadful image from the Virginia Tech shootings; “The cell phones in the pockets of the dead students were still ringing when we were told that it was wrong to ask why,” (Gopnik 694). He uses emotion as a grabber and conclusion, which are really effective. Gopnik drowns his main points with emotions where Cooke stays on topic and does not let his personal feeling interfere with his ability to convey his points. Gopnik constantly recalls prior gun incidents like “In Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996,” and “In Quebec,” (Gopnik 695). Not heartless but mature, Cooke does not let his emotions show. Cooke’s emotion and voice is shown in his fiery attitude, “The ‘saves one life’ standard is so self-evidently and inherently absurd…” (Cooke 4). It is hard for authors not to get caught up in emotions, and Cooke’s ability not to do so sets his piece apart from …show more content…
As previously noted, Cooke has a fiery attitude within his piece and this adds to it in numerous ways. It establishes credibility in him as an author. When noting this fiery side, a reader can conclude that he cares deeply about the topic and that he clearly knows right from wrong. “A more important question, though, is this: What precisely has led our smartest-ever president to believe that the bill he considered vital would help prevent future massacres?” (Cooke 4). Cooke attacks Congress and the President throughout his piece as a way to show how Congress lacks in passing effective legislation. This voice also portrays an author who sees all the weaknesses in the opposing side’s argument and knows how evidently right he is as he states, “... the Left’s knee-jerk reaction to gun violence represents quite the opposite of forward thinking…” (Cooke 4). On the other side, Gopnik uses voice as a way to make the other side seem dumb. “If the facts weren’t so horrible, there might be something touching in the Governor’s deeply American belief that “healing” can take place magically, without the intervening practice called ‘treating’,” (Gopnik 695). One of many statements aimed at the attacking the other side, this resembles that of Cooke’s. He goes from acting like a child by cowardly attempting to guilt the reader with emotions to treating the reader like a child. Cooke’s piece is
Cooke focuses his argument on the Sandy Hook shooting, a delicate topic for many. Cooke does not target the emotions of people as his emotion comes in the facts about the killings. On the contrary, Gopnik uses emotions as a childish attempt to guilt the reader into siding with him, first seen as he paints a dreadful image from the Virginia Tech shootings; “The cell phones in the pockets of the dead students were still ringing when we were told that it was wrong to ask why,” (Gopnik 694). He uses emotion as a grabber and conclusion, which are really effective. Gopnik drowns his main points with emotions where Cooke stays on topic and does not let his personal feeling interfere with his ability to convey his points. Gopnik constantly recalls prior gun incidents like “In Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996,” and “In Quebec,” (Gopnik 695). Not heartless but mature, Cooke does not let his emotions show. Cooke’s emotion and voice is shown in his fiery attitude, “The ‘saves one life’ standard is so self-evidently and inherently absurd…” (Cooke 4). It is hard for authors not to get caught up in emotions, and Cooke’s ability not to do so sets his piece apart from …show more content…
As previously noted, Cooke has a fiery attitude within his piece and this adds to it in numerous ways. It establishes credibility in him as an author. When noting this fiery side, a reader can conclude that he cares deeply about the topic and that he clearly knows right from wrong. “A more important question, though, is this: What precisely has led our smartest-ever president to believe that the bill he considered vital would help prevent future massacres?” (Cooke 4). Cooke attacks Congress and the President throughout his piece as a way to show how Congress lacks in passing effective legislation. This voice also portrays an author who sees all the weaknesses in the opposing side’s argument and knows how evidently right he is as he states, “... the Left’s knee-jerk reaction to gun violence represents quite the opposite of forward thinking…” (Cooke 4). On the other side, Gopnik uses voice as a way to make the other side seem dumb. “If the facts weren’t so horrible, there might be something touching in the Governor’s deeply American belief that “healing” can take place magically, without the intervening practice called ‘treating’,” (Gopnik 695). One of many statements aimed at the attacking the other side, this resembles that of Cooke’s. He goes from acting like a child by cowardly attempting to guilt the reader with emotions to treating the reader like a child. Cooke’s piece is