Argument Comparison
Gun Violence I believe the “Fighting Gun Violence” article is stronger than the NRA statement in the fact that “Fighting Gun Violence” article evenly uses its logos, pathos, and ethos throughout, unlike the NRA article where it relies on the pathos instead of giving actual solutions. The “Fighting Gun Violence” article is a response from Giffords and Kelly. This article covers the topic of gun violence in the USA and goes on to support their claim that changes in our laws need to take place to require responsible gun ownership and reduce gun violence. The second article from the NRA is a statement made by the National Rifle Association discussing their views on what congress should do with this gun violence dispute in America. “Fighting Gun Violence” uses its ethos well because Giffords has first-hand experience with gun violence. In the article Giffords talks about how she was shot and that shows the reader that Giffords is not just some outsider but someone who actually has valuable input on the situation. Giffords also explains in the article that her family owns guns and does not want to give them up fully either. The NRA statement tries to build up its ethos in the beginning of the article by explaining their reasons for holding off on making a statement. They could have improved their argument by keeping their ethos up throughout the entire statement instead of just touch and go. Pathos is used extremely well in both of these articles, but with a topic like gun violence that is kind of a given. With Giffords being shot, she has a different perspective than most people and that gives her a special connection with the audience. The facts, stories, and statistics used in the article are a main part of the logos, but many of them also play into pathos because they have such emotion behind them. This goes for both of the articles being argued. Pathos are also used well in the NRA’s statement. The National Rifle Association’s article uses multiple logos,