Natalie Green September 24, 2013 WRD 103 Rhetorical Analysis Gun control has been a major issue

in the United States over the past few years. However Charles M. Blow uses hyper-negative word choice to try and get his point across that congress is cowardly and does not want to face the issue of gun control. Although using facts and examples Blow really does not have anything to show that he is credible to be talking about congress and how they feel about gun control. Other than pointing out common knowledge that anyone could go online and look up. He uses a variety of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos to present his case however he still falls short of convincing people that he is right. Blow never talks about himself in the article, he states his opinions, but does not mention what he does for work or why he has the right to judge congress the way he is. He does not prove to be credible but he attempts to prove his credibility by saying he does not generalize. However he seems to be quite generalizing by saying things like that would require courage and commitment, qualities that sadly run a deficit in Washington. I would like to be able to find out more about Blow and learn what he does for a living. Is he a journalist for the New York Times only or does he just do that part time? I want to know what makes it okay for him to judge congress and why he can say these things. Although it may not seem like people in congress want to stand up to gun control he doesnt know that for sure. They might want to but they may not have time there are other things to focus on in this world and you have to take it one issue at a time

and the time for gun control will come when it does but until then people need to view it as one small fish in the sea of issues and understand that not everything gets changed instantly everything happens overtime. Blow brings in statistics to validate his point and he shows the rhetoric of the other side but while doing so he shoots it down as being a poor tactic. I cannot say that I one hundred percent trust the author because I dont know his credibility however he does make a valid statement and has valid statistics to support his statement. Blow does use some Pathos by stating that, from 1973 to 2012 there were more than four million firearm injuries in America. Hes trying to make you feel sorry and sad that in those years four million people were injured by firearms. I feel like he could have played the Pathos a little better because he could have given examples of specific stories and tried to appeal more to your emotions than just using this one statistic. However he did not to that he did not try to manipulate and play around with your emotions he could have but he did not. Although this statistic is sad and surprising it does not really get to you emotionally because it does not name any victims or share any stories. Blow barely uses Pathos in the article he focuses more on evidence and statistics. He does not allow emotions to get in the way in this article he uses evidence and facts to show that his point is logical and he does not allow emotions to change your opinion he solely relies on the facts and because of that your emotions cannot change your opinion because there really isnt much in the article that would appeal to your emotions. Blow abruptly ends the article saying but that would require courage and commitment, qualities that sadly run a deficit in Washington. Ending the article this way leaves it incomplete there is no support for why he feels as though they run a deficit and

hes assuming that you will just agree with him regardless. He mentions how protection has replaced hunting as the No. 1 reason that people own guns. He uses this as his counter argument as to why people do not agree with gun control however he does expand on this point and state more facts to support this side of the argument. Overall Blow does a good job of stating both sides of an argument however he does state his opinion as well which does make it an attempt to change your opinion. He plays up his side of the argument and shoots down the other saying that the facts dont neatly line up with that line of reasoning. Based on what is stated in the article Blow is not credible to be discussing this issue. He clearly outlines both sides of an argument which helps to show that he somewhat knows what he is talking about however all his facts and statistics can be found online and he does not have anything to make him more credible than someone like you or me. He just uses these facts to demonstrate both sides and then states that one of them is right and the other one is not because the facts dont line up. This I his own opinion because to me the facts do line up and I can see the argument on both sides and Im still unsure as to which one is right and which one is wrong. Blow did not used Pathos to foster opinions in any way he just used facts and sometimes facts can be conflicting and not necessarily appeal to one side and it just makes you start thinking more. After reading this article I see that Blow is blaming congress for all the issues when maybe there are others to blame but he does not even think of that he just jumps to conclusions. I feel as though the article has had no affect on me other than to make me think more about the argument on gun control and want to look further into it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/opinion/blow-a-ghastly-ritual-repeatsitself.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1379610524YDCpG39EfwX8rlC+DgvWXg&