Strict Gun Control Analysis

Words: 965
Pages: 4

Hunting, going to shooting ranges, and being part of a shooting club is a common hobby for many, but often times there are many obstacle someone has to go through before they can first own a gun. Recently, there has been much debate about stricter gun laws and the right to own a gun, while some people pick a side, Peter writes an article supporting both side of the debate. Peter builds an argument to persuade his audience that restrictions on gun safety are necessary while gun ownership is an important right in his article, “What it’s like to Own Guns in a Country with Strict Gun Control”, through his use of structure, life examples, and a firm diction. Peter builds his argument through his use of structure. He presents a part of the law …show more content…
HIs first example is, “Since then there have been no mass killings in Australia, gun deaths have gone down, and both homicides suicides have dropped.” This example was made after discussing the 1996 mass shooting, and how stricter gun laws arose after that. Giving an example of how the strict guns laws have helped the peoples life isa food persuasion tactic to make people realize that change really does happen with change in laws. It also allows a reader to see how where they live could change for the better with stronger laws. Moreover, Peter says, “I probably have 30 pistols and 20 rifles or shotgun combinations.” Peter states the reality that he himself is gun lover, which places him in the position to explain why he would then by okay with stricter gun laws. This example aids his argument that people should have the right to own guns, as he does, but you can do so through tough laws. Him giving a personal example of his gun ownership gives backup to both arguments, because it shows you can experience the love for gun, because it is your right, while abiding to the law properly. Peter’s example of his life and the law add to his persuasion, but his diction also glues all the pieces …show more content…
The reader can see the firmness in the quote, “Pistols.., on the other hand, are heavily restricted.” The diction is presented in the word heavily. Heavily gives emphasis to the law being enforced, and adds to the fact that gun ownership is not taken lightly. It helps to glue all his other writing techniques together by emphasising the large hand the law has over the people, but it then allows him to explain how society has benefited from it. He also uses the word mandatory in the statement, “...A mandatory 30 day cooling off period for all license applications.” Again, this adds to his argument that the law is fim in Australia. He can persuade his reader with the frimn diction bu cutting to the point. Peter is cutting to the point, and not softening the realness of the gun laws. His readers will be able to put their trust into his statement and easily be guided by his points because he is not faking the reality of how hard it is to own a gun. A reader might be taken off guard by his use of strong words, like mandatory or heavily, but it is a perfect set up to present his life examples and how he has been affected by the laws in a positive way. Which will then help with the flow of his writing and keep the reader's attention to his