Você está na página 1de 2

Natalie Lutz

ENG 111-990
Lutz 1

Knives over guns

Throughout this article, the author uses logos by giving us her facts about how guns are

worse than knives. “In the first place, you have catch up with someone in order to stab him.”

(Ivins) tells us that guns can kill people from far away. You have to actually be in reach of a

person to stab them with a knife. Having knives to kill people instead of guns could make

everyone in better shape. If they killed people with knives as much as they do with guns, more

people would be physically fit and “We'd turn into a whole nation of great runners.” (Ivins).

With these facts about knives over guns, it helps to strengthen the purpose of the article. It

gives us reasons to why Ivins believes that guns should be banned.

Ivins uses pathos by giving scenarios dealing with the damage of guns. “Anyone who has

ever worked in a cop shop knows how many family arguments end in murder because there

was a gun in the house.” (Ivins). This makes us feel connected with this scenario. Every family

gets into arguments, but not every family argument involves a gun. Ivins contributes to our

emotions by allowing the reader to be involved in her scenarios. The reader can step into their

shoes and feel as if they were the family that ended their argument with a gunshot. No one

would want this to happen to their family. Ivins helps us to realize this by getting to our

emotions with an example of what guns can cause.

Ethos is used throughout the article by telling us all of the bad things that guns can do.

She does not tell us how guns could help in society. Ivins only sees the damage that guns can
Natalie Lutz
ENG 111-990
Lutz 2

cause. This article uses ethos to be credible to only those who agree with banning guns. If

someone would read this article who does not agree with Ivins belief, they would think that this

was incorrect information. They would disagree with all statements. Those reading that agree

with Ivins’ point of view, believe that this article is credible. They stand on her side of the

argument. “I don't know what is missing in their psyches that they need to feel they have to

power to kill.” (Ivins). This helps the reader to understand that Ivins does not think that guns

should be in society. Your perception of this right will determine if you think that this article

was credible or not.

The author uses language to make you understand her negative tone. She employs negative

connotations on the words throughout the article to help you understand her side of the

argument. She tells the reader that “Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying

the security of this free state.” (Ivins). The reader can understand that she thinks guns are

tearing down our country. Ivins does not see any good reason that guns could be allowed for.

She realizes that “This is no longer a frontier nation in which people hunt their own food.”

(Ivins). One can gather from this that she does not believe guns have any purpose in our

everyday lives. We do not need guns to help us survive. Ivins wants us to realize that guns are

violent. If people want to kill, they need to kill with something besides guns. “You want

protection? Get a dog.” (Ivins). Dogs can help protect owners simply like a gun can.