Response: Kristof Texts

                                         “Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?”

What seems to be the overall argument?

Kristof’s overall argument is that gun regulations should be more strict in the United States so less people die by the use of a firearm.

What are some of Kristof’s main claims? 

  • Kids are dying in shooting massacres because guns aren’t regulated properly.
  • Other countries are have better gun regulations than America
  • Firearm regulations should be treated more seriously like cars and ladders.

What kinds of claim does he present?

  • Claims about Consequences
  • Call to Action Claims
  • Comparison Claims

List some of the main types of evidence presented and discuss how persuasive they are. 

  • Examples: Kristof uses examples very effectively in this writing. He talks about how other countries like Australia and Canada have implemented tougher gun regulations and have seen less shooting deaths because of it. This is a perfect example because it shows just how successful strict regulations can be.
  • Facts and Data: Throughout the reading, Kristof dives into the numbers and facts behind guns in the United States. He implements these facts very effectively and they open the readers eye to the seriousness of the gun problem in America. The data about kids being 13 times more likely to be killed by a gun in America is great use of data and is sure to resonate with the audience.

Identify two strategies Kristof uses to persuade his audience.

  • Pathos
  • Comparison and contrast

What is your response to the text?

This text was great. I thought it was very persuasive and I enjoyed how it focused on the important political issue of gun violence. My favorite thing about Kristof’s writing is how he uses data and statistics perfectly to get his points across. I’m more of a numbers guy so when I see an alarming statistic, it is a lot easier for me to comprehend the severity of the situation that is being written about. This text also isn’t a tough read. It is broken up into little paragraphs (which is helpful) and adds a personal and humorous element to the extremely serious topic. I was pleasantly surprised while reading this, some academic reading are tough to get through.

                             

                                      “Some Inconvenient Gun Facts for Liberals

 

What seems to be the overall argument? 

Kristof writes a respectful common ground argument about gun safety in America. He proposes alternative solutions to gun regulations that don’t particularly side with the idea of all guns or no guns.

What are some of Kristof’s main claims? 

  • Gun regulations need to change based on the evidence we have about gun violence.
  • Guns should not be in the hands of men who have just been put on a restraining order.
  • The sale of assault weapons is not a big factor in America’s gun violence problem.

What kinds of claim does he present?

  • Claims about Facts
  • Claims about Consequences
  • Call to Action Claims

List some of the main types of evidence presented and discuss how persuasive they are. 

Facts: Kristof uses tons of facts in this writing. These facts usually are communicated to the audience in order to show them just how sever the gun violence problem is. The fact about how more people have died from guns since 1970 than all wars combined is extremely alarming. This is just one example of how persuasive Kristof’s facts are.

Statistics: Along with facts, Kristof uses statistics to show how serious the gun violence problem has gotten in America. An example of this is his use of the statistic that more than 10% of murders are by intimate partners in America. This statistic doesn’t sound too alarming, but since there are so many murders in the U.S., a solution to this problem could save tens of thousands of lives. Kristof’s use of stats in his argument is effective because he uses real data to address the problem that needs fixing. There is no arguing against cold hard data, making the audience of his reading more convinced to the point he’s trying to make.

Identify two strategies Kristof uses to persuade his audience.

  • Exemplification
  • Metadiscourse

What is your response to the text?

This text was very enjoyable just like the last. This one is more focused on coming up with solutions rather than just addressing the problem and taking a stance on it. I like how Kristof uses statistics and facts that support the pro-gun side of the argument as well as the anti-gun argument. This is a real issue in America and Kristof makes sure you know that. I think his solution of treating a gun like a car could actually be at least a short term solution for gun violence in America. I agree with him that we need to change our gun laws and the solutions he proposed in this text kept me interested and involved throughout the whole read.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s