Essay

1

Osama Bazaid

ENG 101N

October,26

Get a knife, get a Dog but get Rid of GUNS.

Many individuals believe that a gun is enough for their security, while us some tend to disagree .one such people who disagree, author Ivins Molly, wrote` Get a Knife ,Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns ,first edited in 2007, and he argues that individual should use other means like a knife or a dog for security rather than use of a gun.ivins began building his credibility by introducing facts .he quoted an amendment, give an example, of England on how it has increased the liberty due to restriction on gun ownership and successfully supported his argument.

In his article, Ivins first sets the stage by pointing out that he is not antigun but he is a pro knife. He brings out how a knife has various advantages, like physical fitness as one needs to run to catch up with someone to stab him, he also brings the idea of great runners. Ivins continue discussing those who are supposed to be owning guns; the use of guns goes to a controlled militia, furthermore Ivins compares a car and a gun, as a means of killing. He argues that a gun will kill, unlike the car. Ivins suggest those who have that idea or wish to own guns should follow the same as those who own cars underwent; licensing them and the owners. He points out England as a successful nation that has stable liberty due to the restriction of gun ownership. Ivins also cites Michael Crichton and compares the individual who has leaned martial art to be having a similar level of discipline to the regulated militia.

From the beginning, Ivins brings outsources that build his strengthen his credibility and ethos as well as supports his argument. The sources include the saying from the second amendment. A well-regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state it shall be the right of the citizen to keep bear arms. Quoting this saying increases his credibility as it indicates that he has done proper research on his work and he has ended up come with facts and statistics to support his argument. He also uses a personal example to introduce and support his argument, Ivins indicates that he is a pro knife and not antigun, and sometime back he had used a gun to taunt his friends.

Second, he brought a comparison between cars and guns which supports his argument, a car when driven can hit and cause the accident, similar to a gun, presence of a gun is dangerous as the one who is possessing it to have to pull the trigger and the bullet can kill someone. He was trying to convince the readers that in the presence of a gun anytime death can be announced, similar to cars anytime an accident can happen.

In addition to ethos, Ivins uses Lagos, with various facts and evidence.Ivins points about the liberty in England, Ivins brings an example of England as a successful nation with has good liberty, the reason for him to bring out this example, was to clearly show out that when a strong restriction of guns ownership can be implemented by a nation it can end up having a nice liberty unlike a country that allows individuals to own guns without restriction. Through providing a fact that England has nice liberty, the reader tends to agree with him not to use guns to enhance liberty.

Finally, Ivins uses emotional appeal. He ends up telling a personal story; he indicates that for several years he has been enjoying provoking his friends using a gun. through giving this personal story he creates a good chance of creating personal bonds with the readers. The readers tend to believe that when a person has a gun, he/she misuses the power of possessing it and can even harm innocent individuals. He created a good picture that guns should not be used by everyone.

REFERENCES

Ivins.Molly,” Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but get Rid of GUNS, “The Norton Reader An Anthology of Nonfiction.edited by Mellissa A. Goldthwaite etal 14th edi, ww. Norton,2017, pp. 384-86

Hi Osama, the article you have chosen is an interesting one. I think you have to do some “reading between the lines” as the author presents her ideas in a way to really make you think.

Let me tell you some things I thought after reading it. At the beginning she talks about being “Pro-knife”. I sensed a bit of sarcasm when she talked about how killing someone with a knife rather than a gun can promote physical fitness. That made me think she was trying to appeal to the audience through pathos, to make us laugh and hook us into her subject.

I also thought her appeal to ethos was a bit weaker than her appeal to logos. Yes, her argument was very logical by using the sources she did. (and you pointed out several of them). However, I tend to not think so highly of her credibility. While she did use logical sources, it doesn’t seem like she did really hard research into this subject, and was mainly explaining her “emotional” opinion about it (with some acceptable, yet very general sources) .For example, Michael Crichton is the author of a fictional book “Jurassic park” (have you seen the movie?), and I think what this source says is logical, but its is a reliable source? She doesn’t tell us anything more about Michael except he wrote Jurassic park. This appeals to the readers emotional side as well because this book/movie is very popular.

She even goes so far as to tell us her political point of view (civil libertarian). It might benefit you to do some research on what this means, and if it holds any significance to the effectiveness of her argument. I think it’s a bit risky and maybe a bit unethical for authors to reveal their political stances if they want to be persuasive.

So take some time to really think about and potentially revise your thesis/claim. Maybe you can argue that the author successfully presents their argument from a logos and pathos perspective, but the ethos appeal could have been stronger.