Gun control debate
Gun control is an extremely current debate in America, being that it is the only highly developed country that gives people the right to own a gun with just a background check that is conducted in store purchases. Gun buyers have to fill out a form from the ATF, or the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. This article presents National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox’s personal beliefs towards gun control in America, whilst proposing their solution. They decided to issue a statement arguing against politicians calling for more gun control.
To begin their argument they start off by attempting to appeal to the audience in a sympathetic and emotive way by referring to the mass shooting in Las Vegas as evil and senseless. By doing this they are capturing the attention of the …show more content…
They then go on to use a strawman fallacy as they misrepresented the politician’s proposal to add stricter laws. These laws would include increasing the regulations before being able to purchase a gun rather than “banning guns from law-abiding Americans” as quoted from Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox. They used misrepresentation as a way to make an easy attack on the politician's argument, attempting to put the politician in the ‘wrong’ for trying to ‘ban guns’ that “law-abiding Americans” currently have the right to own. This sentence, then goes on to contradict itself as it says, “banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks.” It is a contradiction because this
Gun control is an extremely current debate in America, being that it is the only highly developed country that gives people the right to own a gun with just a background check that is conducted in store purchases. Gun buyers have to fill out a form from the ATF, or the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. This article presents National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox’s personal beliefs towards gun control in America, whilst proposing their solution. They decided to issue a statement arguing against politicians calling for more gun control.
To begin their argument they start off by attempting to appeal to the audience in a sympathetic and emotive way by referring to the mass shooting in Las Vegas as evil and senseless. By doing this they are capturing the attention of the …show more content…
They then go on to use a strawman fallacy as they misrepresented the politician’s proposal to add stricter laws. These laws would include increasing the regulations before being able to purchase a gun rather than “banning guns from law-abiding Americans” as quoted from Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox. They used misrepresentation as a way to make an easy attack on the politician's argument, attempting to put the politician in the ‘wrong’ for trying to ‘ban guns’ that “law-abiding Americans” currently have the right to own. This sentence, then goes on to contradict itself as it says, “banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks.” It is a contradiction because this