Shootings

The cell phones in the pockets of the dead students were still ringing when we were told that it was wrong to ask why. As the police cleared the bodies from the Virginia Tech engineering building, the cell phones rang, in the eccentric varieties of ring tones, as parents kept trying to see if their children were O.K. To imagine the feelings of the police as they carried the bodies and heard the ringing is heartrending; to imagine the feelings of the parents who were callingdread, desperate hope for a sudden answer and the bliss of reassurance, dawning griefis unbearable. But the parents, and the rest of us, were told that it was not the right moment to ask how the shooting had happenedspecifically, why an obviously disturbed student, with a history of mental illness, was able to buy guns whose essential purpose is to kill peopleand why it happens over and over again in America. At a press conference, Virginias governor, Tim Kaine, said, People who want to . . . make it their political hobby horse to ride, Ive got nothing but loathing for them. . . . At this point, what its about is comforting family members . . . and helping this community heal. And so to those who want to try to make this into some little crusade, I say take that elsewhere. If the facts werent so horrible, there might be something touching in the Governors deeply American belief that healing can take place magically, without the intervening practice called treating. The logic is unusual but striking: the aftermath of a terrorist attack is the wrong time to talk about security, the aftermath of a death from lung cancer is the wrong time to talk about smoking and the tobacco industry, and the aftermath of a car crash is the wrong time to talk about seat belts. People talked about the shooting, of course, but much of the conversation was devoted to musings on the treatment of mental illness in universities, the problem of narcissism, violence in the media and in popular culture, copycat killings, the alienation of immigrant students, and the question of Evil.

The imagery used in this paragraph is very graphic and morbid, which provokes the reader to genuinely The use of inclusive language such as we Imagery Colourful language; evokes strong images and emotions, unbearable, heartrending Allit; dread, desperate hope Inclusive lang; we Answering a question posed as a question

Evidence strong and quoted from a recognisable figure, gives credibility, Tone- scathing, loathe,

A lot of solutions proposed by guy lobbyists are listed with the clear tone of derision and contempt. The language is sarcastic and seems to match the equally ridiculous seeming proposals.

Some people, howeverespecially people outside Americawere eager to talk about it in another way, and even to embark on a little crusade. The whole world saw that the United States has more gun violence than other countries because we have more guns and are willing to sell the m to madmen who want to kill people. Every nation has violent loners, and they tend to have remarkably similar profiles from one country and culture to the next. And every country has known the horror of having a lunatic get his hands on a gun and kill innocent people. But on a recent list of the fourteen worst mass shootings in Western democracies since the nineteen-sixties the United States claimed seven, and, just as important, no other country on the list has had a repeat performance as severe as the first. In Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, a gunman killed sixteen children and a teacher at their school. Afterward, the British gun laws, already restrictive, were tightenedits now against the law for any private citizen in the United Kingdom to own the kinds of guns that Cho Seung-Hui used at Virginia Techand nothing like Dunblane has occurred there since. In Quebec, after a school shooting took the lives of fourteen women in 1989, the survivors helped begin a gun-control movement that resulted in legislation bringing stronger, though far from sufficient, gun laws to Canada. (There have been a couple of subsequent shooting sprees, but on a smaller scale, and with far fewer dead.) In the Paris suburb of Nanterre, in 2002, a man killed eight people at a municipal meeting. Gun control became a key issue in the Presidential election that year, and there has been no repeat incident.
Evidence shows that the author has done research and knows what he or she is talking about. Gives the rest of arguments within the article a sense of assuredness. More statistical evidence is also subtly employed to prove that the introduction of tougher gun laws resulted in less deaths with further strengthens the argument. Examples of similar shootings in other countries and the measures taken by those respective governments is designed to compare and contrast the action being taken by the American government and other governing bodies. The perceived severity of the reinforced legislations in other countries also helps to placate those who view Obamas opinion on gun control as already generous yet practical.

So there is no American particularity about loners, disenfranchised immigrants, narcissism, alienated youth, complex moral agency, or Evil. There is an American particularity about guns. The arc is apparent. Forty years ago, a man killed fourteen people on a college campus in Austin, Texas; this year, a man killed thirty-two in Blacksburg, Virginia. Not enough was done between those two massacres to make weapons of mass killing harder to obtain. In fact, while campus killings continuedColumbine being the most notorious, the shooting in the one-room Amish schoolhouse among the most recent weapons have got more lethal, and, in states like Virginia, where the N.R.A. is powerful, no harder to buy.

Tone The tone of this paragraph is mocking and indicates to readers that the arguments being presented (which are those of the gun lobbyists) are illogical and irrelavent. Statistical evidence is used to clearly present the amount of death that occurs as a result of shootings.

Reducing the number of guns available to crazy people will neither relieve them of their insanity nor stop them from killing. Making it more difficult to buy guns that kill people is, however, a rational way to reduce the number of people killed by guns. Nations with tight gun laws have, on the whole, less gun violence; countries with somewhat restrictive gun laws have some gun violence; countries with essentially no gun laws have a lot of gun violence. (If you work hard, you can find a statistical exception hiding in a corner, but exceptions are just that.

Repetition the word countries is repeated to emphasize that all countries are basically the same so therefore, the levels of gun violence should be similar. As they are not, the repletion of gun laws is used to show that countries with tight gun laws will experience less violence and death.

Some people who smoke their whole lives dont get lung cancer, while some people who never smoke do; still, the best way not to get lung cancer is not to smoke.) Its true that in renewing the expired ban on assault weapons we cant guarantee that someone wont shoot people with a semi-automatic pistol, and that by controlling semi-automatic pistols we cant reduce the chances of someone killing people with a rifle. But the point of lawmaking is not to act as precisely as possible, in order to punish the latest crime; it is to act as comprehensively as possible, in order to prevent the next one. Semi-automatic Glocks and Walthers, Chos weapons, are for killing people. They are not made for hunting, and its not easy to protect yourself with them. (If having a loaded semi-automatic on hand kept you safe, cops would not be shot as often as they are.)

Anecdote A well known example is used to draw a easy to understand parallel from the proposed new gun legistlatiosn.

Rural America is hunting country, and hunters need rifles and shotgunswith proper licensing, well live with the risk. There is no reason that any private citizen in a democracy should own a handgun. At some point, that simple truth will register. Until it does, phones will ring for dead children, and parents will be told not to ask why.

Emotive appeals - The author makes an appeal to the patriotic pride of American (pro gun lobbyists who are the specific demographic targeted by this article). The use of the word democracy is to appeal to the freedom and liberty that is the very essence of American culture. It is to show Americans that Graphic imagery The conclusive statement is short, sharp and effective; it ties back to the introductory sentence and nicely rounds off the article. The graphic images is designed to provoke deep thought and empathy for those that are affected by gun massacres. Inclusive language: The use of we is to once again imply that the public as a whole should be on the same side and this particular issue affects us all.

A heavily controversial subject currently dominating the news at the moment is gun control. It has been brought reluctantly into the limelight by a recent but shocking shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. Arguably the most powerful and influential governing system in the world, America, led by President Obama is rallying support for his tighter gun legislations to prevent more shootings or massacres from occurring in the future. He is, however, opposed by not only much of the public but gun lobbyists and Congress who argue that arms are part of the constitution in the second amendment. One article titled Shootings written by Adam Gopnik, appears in The New Yorker and focuses largely on the terrible aftermath left in the wake of shootings and stresses through a range of persuasive techniques that tougher gun legislations will save lives. A cartoon showed a different opinion on this particular issue and expressed it in satire.

The language of the article is very succinct and effectively conveys to the reader the seriousness of shootings and how they affect people and their families. Gopnik has employed a formal yet impassioned tone to express the severity of the situation and the grief that is felt by families of innocent victims who died in recent shootings. The formality of the language shows respect to those that are grieving and also emphasises that the author has a certain sense of authority in this topic, due to the impression of extensive research and knowledge that is conveyed. However, the language of the text is further enriched with the distinct sense of the author, imploring readers to see sense and realise that people will continue to die in vain without tougher gun laws. The language is also easy to read, yet very mature as The New Yorker targets an older, more knowledgeable audience. The emotive language, emotional appeals and strong use of descriptive vocabulary not only makes the text engaging but are also thought provoking. The opening paragraph describes the phones of victims ringing, as their families frantically ring to see if their loved ones are okay, during the aftermath of a shooting The image conjured in the minds of readers is morbid and also incredibly moving if not also fearsome. It is designed to arouse strong emotional responses in the reader such as sympathy, sadness and pity. Strong, descriptive words such as heartrending, desperate and unbearable are intentionally employed to stimulate thoughts of losing your own loved ones. Gopnik appeals to readers values and their attitudes towards family values and to provoke a sense of injustice for the dead victims. Inclusive language is cleverly applied by Gopnik in the article to engage the reader and evokes sympathy in readers which makes the text very effective and persuasive. Words such as we and us are used to describe the general public as well as parents of victims, who are left in the dark as authorities still refuse to address the problem but are intent on sweeping everything under the mat. The parents of victims would obviously be not only outraged but grief stricken as they continue to be left not knowing how and why such atrocities were allowed to happen. Inclusive language used by the author shares these violently strong emotions to the public so that they too, feel more inclined to accept the idea of stronger gun legislations. The comparative and statistical evidence in the text gives the entire article a sense of authority and credibility. Gopnik writes about a shooting that occurred in Scotland and the measures that were taken as a result that have been statistically proven to decrease gun related deaths. . Gopniks use of a comparative scenario is designed to juxtapose the action being taken by the American government and other governing systems. The statistical evidence is employed to give irrefutable proof that appears objective and unbiased. The use of factual evidence means that readers feel that the contention presented is irrefutable and thoroughly researched. The use of evidence gives the article believability and a strong sense of irrefutablility. Completely contradictory to the formal yet succinct tone of the article written by Gopnik, the cartoon drawn by Mccoy adopts a sarcastic tone. Mccoy compares the increase of calls for gun control to hypothetical calls from congressional democrats for the outlaw of sunshine because of increase in skin cancer. The tone is heavily sarcastic because to outlaw sunshine would simply be ridiculous and practically impossible to enforce. The sarcasm mocks the congressional democrats and their push for increased gun control to curb gun related violence and deaths. The use of sarcasm is thought provoking and causes the reader to question their attitudes toward the effectiveness of gun control.

Humour is a common yet effective technique that is used by cartoonists. The actual cartoon has exaggerated the features of a news reporter to make the picture seem ridiculous but amusing to readers. The use of humour is to appeal to all demographics which means that it potentially reaches a larger audience which makes the cartoon effective. Symbolism is employed by Mccoy to represent congressional democrats as an ass. Asses are typically associated with connotations such as slow, backwards-thinking and laziness. The ass itself along with other visuals within the cartoon, all appeal to the readers sense of humour and subtly manipulates the opinions of the reader to take notice of the issue in contention. The structure of the cartoon, though not ultimately substantial, is effective as it appears reasonable.

Gun legislations have been a controversial topic, especially in America for many years now but recent shootings have resulted in increased debate from all forms of media.