Analysis of opposing viewpoints in two articles

¶ … Gun Control" care deeply enough about the Second Amendment to write essays on the topic. However, the two essays are completely different not just in their rhetorical content but also in their rhetorical style. The former, entitled "How I See It," is an article that argues in favor of gun proliferation while the latter, "A Case for Gun Control," argues in favor of gun control. The two essays differ significantly in terms of language, supporting evidence, sociological influences, and author perspectives.

Given the striking differences between the quality of "How I See It" and "A Case for Gun Control," it seems unfair to compare the two. "How I See It" lacks credibility because of the frequent use of, and reliance upon, logical fallacies. While a pro-gun position can be framed in a logical and sane manner, this author is neither of those. Instead, the author of "How I See It" resorts to sweeping generalizations such as, "They are willing to subvert the freedoms in the entire Bill of Rights to achieve their goals. By way of contrast, most gun owners will defend the rights of all Americans to speak out on issues (even gun control), to worship the religion of their choice, to have a fair trial and so forth."

The author of "How I See It" disparages any and all intervention into the so-called right to bear arms, viewing that right as immutable and unlimited. The author of "A Case for Gun Control" anticipates this point-of-view and argues reasonably against it. For example, the author of "A Case for Gun Control" quotes actual case law on the issue -- something that the author of "How I See It" does not. The author of "A Case for Gun Control" quotes from historical and recent case law such as Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971: "Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm."

The author of "How I See It" resorts to blanket assumptions about the motives of gun control advocates throughout the essay, thereby weakening the core argument considerably. For instance, the author claims, "from my perspective, gun control advocates don't seem to understand how swiftly crime can occur and how little time they have to summon the authorities." The statement also seems to support the right of citizens to take the law into their own hands, by suggesting that law enforcement officials are not qualified to stop crime in an effective manner.

Whereas the author of "A Case for Gun Control" uses logic and a systematic argument, the author of "How I See It" uses hyperbole. The author of "How I See It" claims that with gun control "we'd see new crimes being committed. Car-jackings, home-invasions, gang robberies on busses or subways and so on." No evidence is offered other than the author's emotional intensity. The author of "A Case for Gun Control" does not allow personal feelings to interfere with a logical and cohesive argument that uses various sources of argumentative proof including that of logic, ethics, case law, and criminological data.