Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Gun Control and Politics

In society today there is a large variety of very important issues that have to do with politics. According to Fox News the “hot issues” of 2012 were: 1- Federal Spending, 2- Jobs and Economy, 3- Government Regulation, 4- National Security, 5- Illegal Immigration, and 6- Health Care. However, with the New Year less than a week in, things have shifted.  Some people believe that unlike last year gun control is going to be a very big political issue. With several different gun related tragedies happening in the last couple months of the year 2012, I too believe that this is true. In the three articles that will be discussed in regards to gun control one is persuasive, one subtly persuasive, and then one is “objective”. I will discuss the different aspects of each article that make them persuasive or objective.

It is hard not to have a bias opinion on gun control when one side is fighting for those who have died in tragedies such as the Newtown, Connecticut shooting; or the other side fighting for our civil rights to be protected (aka the right to bear arms). However, after the most recent tragedy at least everyone can agree that something must be done so that mentally unstable individuals can not have access to weapons that can cause such harm. It was not hard for me to form an opinion quickly and the media definitely had an impact on it.

The first article that will be discussed is the persuasive article that discusses twelve different facts about gun control. In the beginning of this article the author Ezra Klein makes it clear that he thinks there needs to be more restrictions on guns he does this by saying:

“If roads were collapsing all across the United States, killing dozens of drivers, we would surely see that as a moment to talk about what we could do to keep roads from collapsing. If terrorists were detonating bombs in port after port, you can be sure Congress would be working to upgrade the nation’s security measures…Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not. “Too soon,” howl supporters of loose gun laws. But as others have observed, talking about how to stop mass shootings in the aftermath of a string of mass shootings isn’t “too soon.” It’s much too late.”(Klein, 2012, para. 4-5).

            He continues with stating twelve different facts that support this view. This leaves viewers with the feeling that gun laws must have more restrictions to stop the tragedies from continuing.

            Moving on to the objective article there are some very big differences in the way that the writer discusses key points relating to gun control. Whereas as discussed above the writer is clear about the way that he feels about the topic, the writer of the objective article tries not to make clear what his opinion is on the topic of gun control. He does this by discussing both points of view and the conflict between those who oppose tighter restrictions and those who what more gun restrictions.

“Note that this “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” does not arise from looking at different aspects of the same case but from focusing on two different kinds of cases. The pro-gun side focuses on cases of legitimate self-defense (and hunting and target-shooting). The anti-gun side focuses on wrongful uses of guns: the Newton killer or an enraged husband who shoots his wife (and on deaths from accidents with guns). Both sides are looking at cases that are real. The question is: how can we take all of them into account? What is the proper way to think about this issue?”(Binswanger, 2013, para. 3-4).

            Because Binswanger starts the article off by comparing the two sides and does so throughout the piece it shows that he is making an attempt to be objective. However, when one looks a little deeper into how he ends the piece it is clear that he objects more restrictions on gun control when he says, “Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished.” (Binswanger, 2013, para. 19). Many people the commented on this article said it was an objective view on the topic of gun control. I saw it as slightly objective but it was the closest article I could find to being objective on gun control.

The third article is the subtle article that is still persuasive but is not as straight forward about the point. Throughout this article it is clear that the writer seems to mock the NRA (National Rifle Association) for their opinion on gun control laws. The main difference in this article verse the objective article is that the writer does not look at both sides. He discusses his concerns about the reason for tighter laws being forgotten. However, unlike in the persuasive article he discusses more of the facts as to what is going on currently with the topic and law makers. (ROSENTHAL, 2013, para. 8)

Before reading these articles and many others like them I already had my own opinion on gun control and the laws that should come about in the future. These articles helped me look at different points of view and make my ideas even more clear then what they were prior. I do not feel like I am subject to political persuasion in all topics. It depends on if I have an opinion on the topic prior or not. When I am nieve about a subject is when I am more vulnerable to political persuasion which I’m sure how many people are.

I think that one technique that is used in political articles to persuade people is using the audience naivety against them. Often times I think that politicians assume that many people are not going to do their own research on the topic and will take the politicians word for it. However, when one digs deeper they learn that often times the articles may not be telling the whole truth. This happens quite frequently with people that do not have the time to research any more then reader the random news article or watch a certain new program.

I think that the persuasive article regarding gun control is persuasive and accomplishes its goal. It is effective because of the statistics and other resources that it uses while discussing the topic. It uses charts so that the reader can visually see what they are trying to prove and the differences. The vast amount of information from other countries is also persuasive and shows the reader that the writer did a great deal of research while writing the article. Thus the reader trusts the writer more.

As a society we can reduce our vulnerability to political persuasion by being informed and not being afraid to look at the opposing view. The more one is educated in the subject the better equip they are to knowing what they believe about the topic and also what others believe. Also in learning more about the subject they will be able to defend their ideals when and if politicians try to persuade them otherwise.

Overall, whether we are discussing gun control or another topic journalists and politicians have an impact on what we believe whether we want to admit it or not. To be informed is one of the best ways to make sure that you know what they are discussing and to not be vulnerable. This is because whether a journalist tries to or not often times their opinion will come out in their work without them knowing it. So stay up to date on topics so that their opinions will not affect your belief system.


References


ROSENTHAL, A. (2013, January 7). The Gun-Control Agenda Takes Shape. . Retrieved from http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/the

No comments:

Post a Comment