The harsh language she uses here directly exposes her anger and resistance to her opposition. Molly Ivins declares her frustration with gun laws and gun advocates in the next section of her article.
Starting with some sarcasm and humor that faded into seriousness was a good technique to engage her audience and get them thinking.
Her explanation of fourteen year old boys, crazy religious cults, and other unregulated citizens not being well-regulated militia strongly shows that many have taken the amendment out of context. Posted on January 19, by Zack Gala Molly Ivins wrote an essay about gun control a number of years ago, in I believe.
Her sarcastic approach to the tragedies that can occur when untrained gun owners mishandle their weapons reflects, though with some humor, her ultimate frustration and annoyance that these tragedies are allowed to happen in the first place. This is a good remark to open with, as this shows she is not some radical pacifist looking to prevent the use of guns anywhere.
One downside to this humor may be the potential decrease in gravity of the point she is trying to make. This statement begins her rant against the unwinnable battle surrounding the gun control debate. She addresses here the common counterargument that cars are just as dangerous as guns, but no one questions whether they should be legal.
Her use of rhetorical questions in the sixth paragraph is also representative of her sarcastic response to those who argue that their interpretation of the Second Amendment is exactly literal. Her language is not objective or unbiased, but full of bile and disrespect.
In order to persuade her audience, she uses a number of techniques such as sarcastic humor and general and political examples to prove that guns are lethal and must be controlled or, more preferably, banned.
She completes this image at the end of paragraph eleven by pointing out that guns have no other useful purpose but violence, thereby adding vicious intensity to this already harsh image. She gently coerces her opinions through some humor and levity as opposed to going right in with heavy artillery.
This suggestion sets up an image of gun owners as the opposite, insane and drunk crazy people running around firing weapons at random. In particular, she references the Second Amendment, raises counterarguments, or potential weaknesses, and then discredits them. By utterly dismissing the opposing view, Molly Ivins degrades it to the lowest level she can.
Tense, upset, concerned, annoyed, rebellious, frustrated Another sample: Her examples are powerful, but some may backfire, for there are many counter-examples or counter-clauses that gun activists use daily. She next takes on the opposing argument comparing guns to automobiles.
This is a great technique for trying to convince people that the amendment should be taken literally. Her use of the automobile example is very clever, unique, and powerful. Gun control, however, especially when discussed alongside murder and death, is not a light topic and treating it as such is inherently risky.
It is possible that this aspect of her writing worked in her favor, as it may have made her essay both easier to read and easier to relate to. Lastly, her examples stressing the importance of power without discipline are very powerful, as they clearly show why gun-control laws may in fact be necessary.
By mocking those who support gun use in this way, Ivins does not gain their respect. The issue is sensitive, and I hope that, whatever happens, some solution is reached. While Ivins demonstrates her humorous, sarcastic flavor in the first section of her article, her tone shifts subtly to a more serious attitude in the next.
Her essay certainly seems timely, although it was written a number of years ago. While Ivins begins her article with clear frustration, she soon progresses into a more aggressive attitude. She effectively converts her own opinion into an expression of fact.
In the next section of her article, Molly Ivins becomes combative.The claim of the argument is Guns are a Danger, so it’s safer to get a knife or a dog.
Ivins’s argument is unclear without addressing the main reasons why guns are bad overall. Police Corruption: Time to Get Rid of Crooked Cops Essay More about Get a Knife, Get a Dog but Get Rid of Guns by Molly Ivin. Get Rid of the Penny Words. 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. Rhetorical Analysis: Get rid of guns The paper provides a rhetorical analysis of the article “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns” by Ivins, Molly.
It analyses how the author achieves emotional appeal, ethos, pathos, and logos.
Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns. Molly Ivins, in her Op-Ed called, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns,” argues for an absolute abolition of civilian gun ownership - Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns introduction.
Ivins begins her argument with a sarcastic attitude toward gun laws in the United States. Ivin’s, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Gun’s” reveals a clear position against anti-gun rhetoric, by cleverly asserting that violence in our society is a mainstay, with or without the presence of guns.5/5(1).
Although her essay, Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Ride of Guns is over a decade old, her words are still a hot topic today. Molly Ivin’s essay takes on the gun control debate, engaging the audience with a sarcastic perspective that leaves them asking themselves if they just read an entertaining satire or a convincing and thoughtful piece.Download