Rhetorical Strategies
Writing for the New York Times, John R. Lott (2018) claims that the proposed changes to the background check system will not address the current issue where felons and mass attackers pass the check and acquire guns. Lott says that Congress’s proposed effort to expand the network will fail to address the current issues and create even new ones. He notes that several cases indicate that the system does not work as intended, meaning other solutions should be provided, such as increasing the number of civilians who carry concealed handguns to offer protection in areas where police officers are not immediately available to respond to an attack. Lott targets the activities and entities that continually demand that the background check system be expanded to attain efficiency in how every American is checked before they can be cleared to own a gun. To send the message, he uses ethos, pathos, and logos to make an appeal and make the audience understand the core message being passed across. To make the audience understand that there exists a bigger problem with the background check system, John Lott uses ethos, pathos, and logos to pass the message across and deconstruct the widespread belief that the check system should be expanded to address the current issue of clearing felons and mass attackers to own guns.
Lott targets the audience that supports the expanding of the background check system and intends to make it understand that the issues that exist cannot be addressed by merely expanding the network. This audience includes millions of people who find fault in the system and attempts to make them see more significant issues. To do this, Lott identifies the specific areas and provides examples to emphasize the points. Lott attains his goal, as he is able to offer an insightful basis on why the expansion of the check system is not a feasible solution. More specifically, he uses ethos, pathos, and logos to make the cases detailed in the following sections.
First, as a strategy, ethos is used to give credit and credibility to the author, meaning that he is portrayed as a person with rich experience and authority to talk about the controversial issue. His opinions count, as he has interacted with the field of gun ownership; thus, he knows more than the ordinary American. At the end of the editorial, Lott noted that as the author of the book, “The War on Guns,” and he is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. The two merits make the reader perceive Lott as a person with competence and authority when it comes to the gun ownership issue in the nation. Mainly, ethos usually enables the audience to develop a positive attitude toward the author; thus, the strategy eliminates doubts about the ability of the author.
Additionally, Lott has referenced the assertions and opinions of credible sources to support his claim and line of argument. He reports the view of Reagan Dunn, the National Coordinator of Project Safe Neighborhood, who says that false positives create a burden for the vulnerable people, as they are wrongly categorized; thus, they are unable to access guns. This indicates the use of ethos, as the author provides the insights of other people, who are also qualified to deliberate on the issue.
Additionally, the author uses pathos to make an emotional appeal and connect to the audience. It is the goal of every author to prove the audience’s emotion as a means of initiating a connection that makes the two share ideas. Lott has done this by pointing out the specific cases that every reader relates with; thus, they allow Lott to make the readers gain an in-depth understanding of the points he is trying to make. An example is the cases of Devin Kelley, a deranged man that killed 26 people in Sutherland Springs, Texas. He owned a gun, despite having mental issues. Lott tries to make the readers understand that the background check system did not have any measures to learn about people who may have mental problems but was initially cleared to own guns. The event was televised where Americans followed and feared for their lives, as every person felt they could have been victims. By invoking the memories, the author is able to connect emotionally with the audience. The readers can now understand the message being passed that the system has many problems that will not be fixed simply by expanding it.
Also, Lott presents the case of Ronnie Coleman, who was not allowed to own a gun because a person with a similar name was not cleared to own a firearm. In providing the examples, the author makes the readers understand the exact issues faced by millions of Americans, which allows him to connect emotionally with the audience. Every reader identifies with the examples provided and feels they could also be victims of such inconveniences, which results in an emotional connection. In essence, the author offers recent and memorable examples to invoke the emotions of the readers and make them gain an in-depth understanding of the issues associated with the check system.
On the other hand, the author uses logos, that is, logic, to make the audience see the issues he is trying to stress. First, he makes an impression that the system is flawed and reports many false positives, where a felon is cleared because their names and date of births closely relate with that of a person who is a responsible citizen. Also, some responsible citizens are denied access to guns because their names and dates of birth are similar to other people, who are considered dangerous; thus, they are denied guns. An example that is given is the period between 2006 and 2010 when denials were 377, 283. He says that the denials were mainly because of false information, which should result in perjury charges. However, of the number, only 460 of the cases were prosecuted, resulting in 209 convictions. He says that the only reason why the perjury cases were insignificant considered to the denials is because the charges were dropped following the revelations that the denials were wrongly carried out. In other words, the majority of the people were denied access to guns though they were responsible citizens. The author tries to make the readers understand that the system is hugely flawed, and more significant problems exist and cannot be addressed by merely expanding the network.
However, while the author uses logos to make an appeal to the readers, it is worth noting that some of the assertions do not adequately uphold logic. For instance, he says that more civilians should be allowed to carry concealed handguns, where they will serve as security sources in areas where police officers are not immediately available. However, this does not uphold logic because of two primary reasons. First, the more the people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the chances of getting guns in the hands of deranged people. As such, in trying to address the problem, the move may increase the problem. In a case where civilians are allowed to carry guns, there should be a robust system of assessing and following-up to ensure every person is fit to own a firearm. On the other hand, it does not uphold logic to say that having more civilians with guns directly promotes security in areas where law enforcement officers are not immediately available. The civilians are not tactically trained and may fail to contain gunmen, such as Devin Kelley, who served in the military; thus, they are more skilled in the use of the firearms.
In conclusion, Lott, an experienced professional in the field of gun ownership, provides insights that challenge the common belief that expanding the background check system will automatically result in reduced cases of guns in the wrong hands. He says that the system has many problems, including false positives and the inability to follow-up individuals who already own guns. These core problems should be addressed first. Also, he uses ethos, which gives him credibility as a reliable source. He uses pathos to make an emotional connection with the audience. Finally, he uses logos to make the audience see sense in his argument.
Reference
Lott, J. R. (2018, February 12). Background Checks Are Not the Answer to Gun Violence. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/opinion/politics/background-checks-gun-violence.html