Summary: Molly Ivins writes an argumentative essay upon the controversial topic of guns. She begins her argument that she is in fact not antigun, but believes other forms of protection such as knives and martial arts are more practical for self defense. She supports her argument with the second amendment in the Constitution by breaking it down word for word and its literal meaning. Ivins goes into everyday life and how many people misconstrued the meaning of the second amendment and its correlation to gun use. Finalizing her argument, states her idea that guns should be regulated with strict policies.
Response: Irvin’s essay is very clear and passionate in her argument and point of view. In an almost comical tone she explains the beauty of knife fighting and its practicality in comparison to using a gun. Her light tone sets the reader to feel like she is directly talking to them. This approach makes her argument relatable to the reader as though they are with her in a conversation. I personally feel that her approach is very effective in persuasion. When a writer wants a powerful message to come across to the reader, the application of ethos, pathos and logos is used. In this case, I saw the use of logos when she broke down each part of the second amendment and the literal interpretation of it. Although it would be interesting to see what life would be like without guns and instead other combative tools, I agree with controlling the distribution of guns and enforcing strict purchasing regulations.