Final Draft Writing Assignment 1

Joseph Morris

Professor Eleanor Henderson

Academic Writing

February 18th, 2011

The Weakest Grip: a Rhetorical Analysis of Megan Weintraut’s article “Government should create stricter gun laws”

 The article “Government should create stricter gun laws”, written by Megan Weintraut, is an interesting perspective on the issue of gun laws. Megan wrote the article to express her feelings about the gun laws of America and to argue that we should tighten our grip on the amount of guns being sold in America and perhaps even the distribution of bullets. It was written for and published by The Ithacan, Ithaca’s news and sports newspaper which continues its publications online. 

This article was written in a newspaper which is mainly read by the residents and faculty of Ithaca College. It can be said that the author wishes for this message to reach further than the immediate audience and is aiming for her argument to be heard by those who play a role in creating and voting on laws. Her purpose is to inform the reader of the reason why the current gun laws are not effective and we should have a tighter control over the guns in circulation.

The author has an interesting use of the rhetorical appeals. Weintraut uses a combination of the appeals of logos and pathos to construct her argument. She uses many facts and numbers to inform the audience. Within each paragraph you can find a statistic or fact which supports what she is saying. The problem with this approach is it feels as though it may be the only thing she is saying. The author consistently recites facts and figures, taking little time to insert her own opinion. When she does insert her opinion, however, she delivers it harshly and passionately. Statements such as the the last two sentences of the second paragraph and the last sentence of the 4th paragraph,

        - “Guns have become decreasingly essential for personal survival. Why bother owning one?” 

        - “Instead of minimizing the number of arms available to the public, the ‘sensible’ argument would be to eliminate gun violence by providing more guns the to the public”,

are examples of how fierce insertion of her opinion and the appeal of Pathos. This is a strange but oddly effective way of writing an article. Weintraut’s opinion is piercing within the essay and really does a good job at bringing up these points dramatically. Instead of steadily balancing fact and opinion, she goes outside the norm and saves up her opinion in short bursts. It makes the reading experience unique and interesting.

Unfortunately for Weintraut she does not provide a significant amount of Ethos appeal. She does not mention any expertise or credibility of her knowledge on the subject and fails to cite any sources to ensure the audience of the credibility of her facts. Being a mathematics major does not cause the audience to think she is particularly educated on the subject. The fact that she is a mathematics major does, however, contribute to the credibility of her statistics and figures which are such a large part of her argument. 

Weintraut’s argument has many parts to it. It consists of many pieces of evidence and reasons. Her claim in the article also serves as the title, “Government should create stricter gun laws”. She goes on to state her reasons why the government should do so. she states that “guns have become decreasingly essential for personal survival” (par. 2) and supports her statement with a look at the history of the second Amendment and by stating the reasons we once needed such privileges. Another reason out of many that she says the government should tighten the gun laws is due to the fact that the higher amount of guns in the US accounts for a higher amount of gun violence. She supports this with percentages and facts which show the high percentage of murders and gang-violence that involve guns. Unfortunately the author failed to cite any sources for these facts therefore lacking in the ethos appeal.  

Weintraut’s article briefly mentions the other side of the argument in the third paragraph, so briefly in fact it is literally one sentence. She then goes to immediately discredits it with studies by the American Journal or Public Health and the National Institute of Justice. She therefore does a poor job at acknowledging the many reasons in which someone may be against her point of view, and would find it hard to get someone who has different views as her to regard her article with an open mind. 

This essay was a passionate, informative essay with many informational facts and figures for the reader to consider. The article is written in a very factual way while providing snippets of emotional and passionate opinion, through almost comically aggressive dialogue. The essay did a poor job ensuring the reader of the the writer's credibility or the figures which she bases her whole essay. This is a informative and absorbing read for those who share Ms. Weintraut’s opinion, and a overbearingly opinionated speech to those who do not.