Ivins tries to argue using pathos, logos and ethos. It is possible that this aspect of her writing worked in her favor, as it may have made her essay both easier to read and easier to relate to.
If her goal was to persuade gun-supporters to change their views, she was not necessarily successful; if her goal was to create camaraderie among those against gun use, she could have done a better job. In doing this, Ivins comes away from the humor and becomes serious about the topic, and also points out that she knows her facts, laws, and politics.
Her essay certainly seems timely, although it was written a number of years ago. I think this would help private investigators find stolen guns, or evidence that is sometimes thrown away. Lastly, her examples stressing the importance of power without discipline are very powerful, as they clearly show why gun-control laws may in fact be necessary.
Works Cited Vernick, Jon S. If the intention of the author is to entertain readers with similar views, as opposed to convincing the masses, the article is probably a success depending on the audience.
Her explanation of fourteen year old boys, crazy religious cults, and other unregulated citizens not being well-regulated militia strongly shows that many have taken the amendment out of context. Her light tone sets the reader to feel like she is directly talking to them.
She goes on to quickly mention the tragic outcomes of accidental shootings. One downside to this humor may be the potential decrease in gravity of the point she is trying to make. Starting with some sarcasm and humor that faded into seriousness was a good technique to engage her audience.
Her examples are powerful, but some may backfire, for there are many counter-examples or counter-clauses that gun activists use daily.
Ivins goes into everyday life and how many people misconstrued the meaning of the second amendment and its correlation to gun use.
Whenever someone buys a gun they have to show where they live basic information and the gun should have a tracking device already installed. This makes sense, as the most powerful points of her argument serve to do just this.
This brings up the thought of what kind of knives we are exactly talking about. Although her intent was to make clear she understands both sides I think she blew her cover a bit. I liked her idea of adding some kind of tracking device to the guns like how the DMV system have towards cars.
Molly Ivins writes an argumentative essay upon the controversial topic of guns. Ivins argument was based on bias assumptions and flawed examples that caused her argument to decline the more I read on.
In order to persuade her audience, she uses a number of techniques such as sarcastic humor and general and political examples to prove that guns are lethal and must be controlled or, more preferably, banned. She responds to the argument with the point that at least cars have some other use than violence, which is the only purpose of a gun.
Hire Writer The slow people would end up reverting to their couches having no reason to run as they would just get caught anyway. Ivins use of logos is awesome. By mocking those who support gun use in this way, Ivins does not gain their respect.
Washington DC was thinking the same think when the Supreme Court banned handguns in DC in the decision between keeping a handgun at home for defense was enormously controversial the uninfringed. She then proceeds to remind people that nobody alive now knows exactly what Thomas Jefferson was thinking when he wrote this amendment, so many interpretations and extrapolations of the text are inaccurate and bias.
In particular, she references the Second Amendment, raises counterarguments, or potential weaknesses, and then discredits them.
In this case, I saw the use of logos when she broke down each part of the second amendment and the literal interpretation of it. Finalizing her argument, states her idea that guns should be regulated with strict policies.
Ivins does a good job addressing her opinion and explaining her side on the issue. A potentially interesting link: This approach makes her argument relatable to the reader as though they are with her in a conversation.Although her essay, Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Ride of Guns is over a decade old, her words are still a hot topic today.
Molly Ivin’s essay takes on the gun control debate, engaging the audience with a sarcastic perspective that leaves them asking themselves if they just read an entertaining satire or a convincing and thoughtful piece. Rhetorical Analysis: Get rid of guns The paper provides a rhetorical analysis of the article “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns” by Ivins, Molly.
It analyses how the author achieves emotional appeal, ethos, pathos, and logos. Ivin’s, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Gun’s” reveals a clear position against anti-gun rhetoric, by cleverly asserting that violence in our society is a mainstay, with or without the presence of guns.5/5(1).
the ball for the dog, wash the car, clean out a cupboard or closet, have sex, chew a piece of gum, wash your face, brush your teeth, take a nap, get a cup of coffee Words 6 Pages.
Jan 19, · Molly Ivins wrote an essay about gun control a number of years ago, in I believe. Her essay, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns” explains her view on gun control. Jul 17, · Molly Ivins approaches this hotly-debated topic in her essay, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns,” in which she argues her anti-gun stance by using a logical appeal.
Ivins’ argument is unique due to her comedic writing style, which she uses to her advantage.Download