Gun Controll

English 100
Michael Sepesy
24 October, 2012
Rhetorical Analysis Battleground America The article written by Jill Lepore, “Battleground America,” is about the history of guns, how they are used, and how they are viewed throughout the past up to the present. She talks about major gun companies and their effect on the amendment, and how guns themselves do not cause negative harm but the people who own and use firearms for the wrong reasons cause harm. Lepore uses many strong points about gun control throughout her article to present her information for her audience to feel as though guns are put into the hands of the wrong people, and does so by creating enforced credibility in her sources, using negative connotative language, and an informative feeling to her article rather than an arguing stand point.
The article, ”Battleground America,” written by Jill Lepore, is mainly about the second amendment and the ways it is weakened throughout history by big companies such as the National Rifle Association. The article implies that the meaning of the second amendment is changed throughout history and now is mistreated and misconstrued by many gun companies. In order for Lepore to support her thesis, she uses her expert knowledge and skill in history on the second amendment, as well as self experiences with using guns. Throughout the article Lepore seems to point out that the second amendment went from being created to protect your home and your country, to just being a right of any person to have one, even if he or she shouldn’t.
Battleground America is written by Jill Lepore who is a history professor at Harvard and a writer for the New Yorker magazine since 2005. She published her piece in the New Yorker on April 25 of this year. The New Yorker is a famous magazine viewed by multiple people across America; however, its most common reader is in their forties, has children, and is upper middle class. The articles main focus is the second amendment and its political ties with the N.R.A. Lepore tries to persuade her readers to think negatively about the way guns are distributed and who they are distributed to, as well as oppose the N.R.A. She does not clearly state this in her article but implies it by using negative connotative words such as trauma, lockdown, begged, etc., and used them against people who abuse guns. Furthermore, she adds in quotes from her interviews and conversations with people such as N.R.A executives, gun experts and instructors, and political figures. The quotes given link and imply the responsibility of mainly the N.R.A, but also other gun lobbyist parties for the weakening of the second amendment.
In her article, Lepore makes herself a credible source with guns by putting herself through experiences with them throughout her passage. Also, the history she provides throughout her article is backed up because she is a history professor at Harvard University. She inputs more sources in her article such as the instructor from her firing range experience and her interviews with gun experts and executives from the N.R.A. These sources she selected to back up her article and lead people to thinking what she is stating about gun companies and the way they weaken the amendment are true without aggressively attacking them. Throughout her article, Lepore mentions many past happenings where guns are put into the hands of the wrong people; thus, showing that not everyone should own a gun and again providing historical sources of evidence. The stories the author chose to use in her article also grab much of the attention of the audience of the New Yorker since the people in the stories are kids or are like the readers themselves, parents and citizens trying to better themselves and raise a family.
While the sources she provides help, the language in which the author presents her outlook on the abuse of guns, the N.R.A, and politics of the second amendment are important as well. In the opening of her article, Lepore uses a story about a school shooting and loads it with words that negatively reflect the situation and making the reader feel agreeable with her about the dangers of guns when put into the hands of the wrong people. While not clearly stating how she feels about this, when analyzed the words show her attitude toward the situations. Also, by using such words the author makes the reader feel against big gun corporations and how they make people and government view guns. By tying negative emotional stories with the N.R.A and their part in the legislation on gun control, the writer is creating a relationship between the two and in result making the N.R.A seem to bear a form of responsibility for the killings in the story.
Throughout the reading, the author, Jill Lepore, seems to create her own sense of credibility without using sources other than her-self. As well as having a history degree, being a college professor, and a writer for the New Yorker, Lepore puts herself through informal gun experiences and by doing this she is able to make statements or facts about guns without the use of outside sources. Her first experience she goes to a firing range and spends the day there learning how to shoot a weapon, defeat a sniper and get a brief history lesson over guns as well. Here she gets a first-hand look at weapons experts as to how they act, their views on guns, and how they teach others to view them. Mainly this helps build the character of the author but when she states facts about guns or people who handle, own, and use guns Lepore can back up the information. For instance, when she says “A gun is a machine made to fire a missile that can bore through flesh” she is saying what a gun is and doesn’t need a source to tell her. This makes the article more personable and independent.
In Lepore’s piece, she seems to be more informative about her intentions, rather than giving a state of argument. She does this by never clearly stating her direct opinion about gun laws, the N.R.A and the second amendment, but more implies her opinion with emotional language, and logical explanations against the subjects given. For instance, when Lepore tells a story in the beginning about a shooting she says things like “King, shot in the head, fell face first into the table, a pool of blood forming” (1) and later, ”Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest. Martin did not survive. (2) These sentences are loaded with words and short phrases that appeal to guns in a negative manner. Also, when Lepore states statistics throughout her article, such as the one about who owns guns, “Most Americans do not, however, own guns, because three-quarters of people with guns own two or more.” Lepore uses this quote to show that guns have become too accessible and the people who own weapons have more than what a person should have.
More so, since Lepore does not state or indicate that guns are abominations, but the hands of the people these weapons are being put into and mistreat them are. By doing this in her article, the author is able to gain support from both people who like and people who dislike guns. In particular, when the author talks about Tom Dietzel, her firearm instructor, Lepore says “Dietzel is a skilled and knowledgeable teacher, steady, patient, and calm” (“BA”5) she is showing that not all people who handle guns have violent intentions. This is critical in her paper since it shows that the author does not have a strong bias and is appealing to reason which grabs the attention of many audiences.
In conclusion, Jill Lepore creates an evidential piece about how the second amendment is misconstrued and weakened by the N.R.A, and does so by creating and enforcing her sources, using negative connotative language, and seeming more informal rather than to pose an direct argument. Lepore captures the attention of all readers on either side of the subject of guns and gives an educational piece to the audience. Lepore really appeals to her main audience with the stories she uses in her article and uses her history and writing skills while doing so. This is important because without a main audience to appeal to, the paper has no direction or reason.
Peer Review I chose to make many modifications to my paper, some from the peer review in class and some from the writing labs in the library. A majority of the changes I made pertain to the writing center. Throughout my paper I had many statements that were general such as “Lepore uses many strong points throughout her article to present her information for people to feel this way since she does not give a clear thesis for her article.” Here I evaluated on what kind of points she uses and what way she tries to make people feel. I did this a vast number of times though my paper. In my analysis, my main points were off from my thesis so I changed that. Also I made them each their own paragraph and gave more detail as to what I was analyzing. Also, I made good use of quotes as I was suggested to do.

Works Cited
Lepore, Jill. “Battleground America.” New Yorker 88.10 (2012): 38-47.Print.

Cited: Lepore, Jill. “Battleground America.” New Yorker 88.10 (2012): 38-47.Print.