tiffanyongc-blog

[tiffanyongc-blog]

A Critique on Peter’s Claim of Value: “What it's Like to Own Guns in a Country with Strict Gun Control”

           The article that I chose, “What it's Like to Own Guns in a Country with Strict Gun Control”, was published by Peter in Time Magazine’s website at http://time.com/4172274/what-its-like-to-own-guns-in-a-country-with-strict-gun-control/?iid=sr-link4 last January 14, 2016. The author, Peter, asked Time Magazine to be identified with his first name only so as to be cautious of weapon thieves that may possibly go after his gun collection.

           In writing the article, Peter had made a claim of value in which he considered the good and the bad side, the moral and immoral way, and the just and unjust means of owning a gun. He mentioned that in Australia, if you want to gain ownership of a gun, there has be a legitimate reason that you wish to acquire one. One cannot own a gun just for the sake of it. There are different gun licenses that comes with different categories. There is a Category A, B, C, D, H, and G that corresponds to different types of firearms for different categories of guns. You also have to go to different lengths to get the different gun licenses. You have to provide proof that you are a hunter, you have to be a member of a hunting or target shooting club, you have to undergo a background check by the police, you have to go through firearms safety training courses, or you have to attend at least one meeting per year if you are just collecting them.

           The theme that the author wanted to convey in his article is that anyone can own a gun because is not hard to get. However, it is how it is used that should be considered if ever a person decides to be in possession of one. He wanted to express to his readers, which consists of civilians and government officials, that owning a gun is something that a person should not take lightly and it should be handled with utmost safety and responsibility.

           Logos, the appeal to logic, was used in the statement “In 1996, shortly after a mass shooting in which 35 people died and 23 were wounded, the conservative Australian government introduced a series of stringent new gun laws. Since then, there have been no mass killings in Australia, gun deaths have gone down, and both homicides and suicides have dropped.” In the statement, the cause and effect of the Australian government implementing new gun laws were mentioned. Its cause being the Port Arthur massacre during 1996 that left 35 people dead and 23 injured, which can be further explained and expounded in Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia). The effect of the implementation of new gun laws was that massacres were not happening anymore and the amount of gun deaths, homicides, and suicides became lesser in number.

           In the same paragraph, ethos, the appeal to ethics, was also used in the statement “Many politicians who support stronger gun control, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have pointed to the Australian example as one the United States might follow.” The government officials from the United States of America that were mentioned, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have made the appeal in the statement reliable and convincing.

           Peter used pathos, the appeal to emotion, in the statement “If you want to buy a pistol in Australia you’ve got to be a member of a target pistol club. You’ve got to do a minimum of eight competition shoots per year to keep your license. If you don’t, you lose it.” He used the desire of having a gun license to own a pistol as a persuasion to do eight competition shoots per year through making an emotional response.

           He also used ethos, the appeal to ethics, in the statement “If you were to ask the average Australian who isn’t a shooter, they would say that most people shouldn’t have access to any firearms. But the reality is that gun-lovers like me belong to a club and are doing no harm.” He made use of gun-lovers, like him, as a means of persuading the readers to appeal that people who own guns merely belong to a club and intend no harm to the society.

           In the paragraph “Australia is a great country. You can go hunting, you can go shooting. And as long as you hurt nobody and abide the law you can continue to do it. That to me is freedom. The idea of having people own guns with no concept of gun safety and no reason to have a gun? That is not my idea of freedom.”, Peter also used pathos, the appeal to emotion. He wants the readers to practice the value of responsible freedom in owning their gun or guns by convincing them to have the concept of gun safety.

           Although the author had different appeals, his claim was not shown noticeably and only made it evident at the end of his article. Nonetheless, his claim which consisted of the good and the bad side, the moral and immoral way, and the just and unjust means of owning a gun was supported by different facts and experiences.

           A fallacy, namely Anonymous Authority, was present in the article is that the ‘others’ in the sentence “Others have cited the country as an example of what America should not do.” Without the people mentioned in the sentence, the claim being made becomes implausible.

           The fallacy ‘Anonymous Authority’ was also seen in the sentence “By some estimates there is one gun for every seven people.” since sources as to where the information came from were not revealed. Without sources mentioned, the data mentioned becomes unreliable and questionable as to where it came from.

           As I have stated, government leaders were mentioned in the claim “Many politicians who support stronger gun control, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have pointed to the Australian example as one the United States might follow.” and the author avoided creating the fallacy ‘Anonymous Authority’. The statement then becomes credible with the proper use of authority—Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who are acknowledged government leaders from the United States of America.

           He also avoided creating the fallacy ‘Ad Hominem’ in the statement “When then Prime Minister John Howard proposed the gun law I marched like everybody else did in opposition to it.” He did not attack the person, Prime Minister John Howard, but instead directed his reaction to the issue, which was the proposed gun law.

           One form of Intertextuality that was used in the article is Sequential Association in which Peter narrated the events that he has went through and experienced before and during the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

           He also used Proximal Association by relating what had happened to him after the Port Arthur massacre during 1996 to the kind of gun owner he is in the present. He had also let his sons shoot at the age of 12 and have pistol and rifle licenses, just like how his father gave him a rifle at the same age.