Along with strong ethos and logos, Beck also uses strong pathos. In the book’s “Author’s Note,” Beck says the gun argument “is really about control. Not of guns, but of us. Controlling what we eat and drive, how we heat our homes, and how we educate our kids—that’s all small potatoes compared to controlling our overall relationship with government” (XV). Beck is evoking anger and concern out of his audience. Beck’s main audience is conservatives, and most conservatives prefer as little government interference as possible. Beck is instilling the belief that the government will want to start controlling other aspects of our lives when has done all it can do to control our guns. Most conservative readers do not want the government controlling
…show more content…
In one section of the book that discusses state gun laws, Beck states that Massachusetts passed laws that “work[ed] to make it difficult for law-abiding people to own guns (there were 1.5 million active licenses in 1998 and only 200,000 four years later), it had no effect on people who generally ignore laws anyway” (26). This implies that Beck does not believe tougher gun laws reduced crime rates. In the section of the book discussing why the argument that someone can modify an AR-15 to become automatic is erroneous, Beck rebukes that “convert[ing] and AR=15, or any other gun, into a fully automatic weapon…is a federal felony” and can land someone “twenty years in prison” (49). This goes against Beck’s previous assumption and suggests that he believes a tough gun law would stop a crime from happening. This contradictory thinking is what causes the falling apart of his Part Two argument that violent media causes real life violence. Regarding the myth KEEPING A GUN AT HOME IS POINTLESS ANYWAY, Beck mentions that Stephen King believes this point because Herbet Clutter from Truman Capote’s non-fiction book In Cold Blood owned a gun but was too shocked to use it. Beck then writes, “King is using just one example of a crime where having a gun might make a difference” (71). This implies that Beck believes King’s example is not valid because it is just one example compared to the many other times that having a gun in the house has been useful. In Part Two, however, Beck only gives seven examples of violent videogames influencing deadly shooters. He also gives only one example of a movie influencing a shooter and no examples of a television show influencing a shooter; he mentions The Walking Dead as a violent television show but does not give an example of it influencing a shooter (122-125, 149). Compared to the millions of people who play video games, seven instances
In one section of the book that discusses state gun laws, Beck states that Massachusetts passed laws that “work[ed] to make it difficult for law-abiding people to own guns (there were 1.5 million active licenses in 1998 and only 200,000 four years later), it had no effect on people who generally ignore laws anyway” (26). This implies that Beck does not believe tougher gun laws reduced crime rates. In the section of the book discussing why the argument that someone can modify an AR-15 to become automatic is erroneous, Beck rebukes that “convert[ing] and AR=15, or any other gun, into a fully automatic weapon…is a federal felony” and can land someone “twenty years in prison” (49). This goes against Beck’s previous assumption and suggests that he believes a tough gun law would stop a crime from happening. This contradictory thinking is what causes the falling apart of his Part Two argument that violent media causes real life violence. Regarding the myth KEEPING A GUN AT HOME IS POINTLESS ANYWAY, Beck mentions that Stephen King believes this point because Herbet Clutter from Truman Capote’s non-fiction book In Cold Blood owned a gun but was too shocked to use it. Beck then writes, “King is using just one example of a crime where having a gun might make a difference” (71). This implies that Beck believes King’s example is not valid because it is just one example compared to the many other times that having a gun in the house has been useful. In Part Two, however, Beck only gives seven examples of violent videogames influencing deadly shooters. He also gives only one example of a movie influencing a shooter and no examples of a television show influencing a shooter; he mentions The Walking Dead as a violent television show but does not give an example of it influencing a shooter (122-125, 149). Compared to the millions of people who play video games, seven instances