Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives by Stephen E. Wright: Article Analysis

Bang! Bang! Pow! Pow! "Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives" by Stephen E. Wright, was written in 2010. Wright is a blogger/author who is continually writing about current events or issues. He is also known for his book, Off Road: A Uniquely American Novel about God, Guns, and Big Trucks…and Family. In his article, Wright discusses seven different "common sense gun laws" promoted by anti-gun groups. He analyzes each suggestion one at a time and then proceeds to tear them apart, proving them to be nothing more than emotional pleas. He is out to prove to the reader that gun control laws really won 't save lives, especially if they are founded upon "emotional rhetoric" (Wright). In a manner almost just as effective, a poster hanging outside a public office building uses a satirical manner to get its point across. Your eyes are drawn to a picture of a gun with a big red "X" drawn through it and to the right are the words, "No weapons allowed". If you keep reading, however, you will find written below, "Attention Criminals: This is a Defense Free Crime Zone - All law abiding patrons of this establishment have been disarmed for your convenience." It doesn 't take much understanding to realize the poster is making a joke out of an anti-gun or gun-free zone. Stephen Wright 's use of careful reasoning, evidence, and statistics to persuade his audience may be very different from the poster 's use of dark humor; but they both effectively show the impracticality and inefficiency of gun control laws. Wright brilliantly makes his arguments more effective by not targeting or bashing a specific group. Wright 's intended audience really is everyone, not just an anti-gun group, or an uneducated citizen. Although he is debating some anti-gun group 's claims, he repeatedly refers to the "average American" and "normal citizen" trying to widen his playing field a little. This allows him to persuade a much larger audience. He already knows what the views of the anti-gun groups are. He doesn 't want people out there to not know how to back their beliefs or not be able to intelligently argue their point with someone who has an opposing view. Wright is tired of hearing emotional appeals to sway people 's stances on gun control and tries hard to bring some common sense to the table. He uses some real hard facts to educate anyone who is willing to read the article. One of the most effective strategies Wright uses in his writing is the way he organizes the layout of his arguments. He sets up his material in a manner easy to follow, then proceeds to knock down the faulty tales issued by these anti-gun groups. Wright dissects seven claims separately, first by stating the claim, and then by using a combination of evidence, statistics, and reasoning to falsify the claim. Throughout the article, Wright uses evidence to dock any claims made by these anti-gun groups. While discussing the concealed gun policy, Wright provides evidence of a law that has been put into effect but has yet to cause problems. The way he presents the evidence ultimately smashes the hypothesis of anti-gun group. The claim he is disputing states that allowing "normal citizens" to carry concealed weapons will end up causing a war zone with fights breaking out and daily shooting sprees occurring (Wright). The evidence he provides the reader with though, shows that with the forty states this law has been passed in, "there have been no explosions of crime, shootouts over parking spots, or road rage gunfights" (Wright). How can you argue with evidence that provides zero cases of incidents you are trying to predict? You can 't! And that is why Wright includes this circumstantial evidence. It 's hard to argue with statistics though, and Wright knows that and brilliantly uses them to his advantage. Think that guns that can hold more ammunition equals more dead people? That 's what the anti-gun groups want you to believe, but the statistics Wright gleans from well-respected reads such as "Huffington Post", "Newsweek", and others have a different story to tell. These statistics show that for most murders, an "average of 3-4" shots are fired. Also "it takes 2 seconds or less to change a magazine in a weapon" (Wright). For those of you not familiar with guns, the average ammunition capacity of a magazine is 10 rounds. This of course varies based on the size of the gun as well as the ammunition type. A magazine (gun cartridge) that can carry fifteen or more rounds is considered to be "large capacity" or an extended magazine. These statistics show there is no validity to the idea that "Large capacity firearms magazines enable murderers to kill large number of victims" (Wright). Still not convinced? Don’t worry; Wright has some more evidence showing that for some of the most infamous shootings of the century, such as Columbine and Virginia Tech, the shooters had the normal 10-round size magazine. The point? We all know the horrendous amount of blood that was shed in both of those mass shootings. Each shooter was unfortunately equipped well enough with a normal size gun to cause more than enough damage. It doesn 't matter how much evidence you have, or how many statistics you show though, if you don 't have good reasoning. Wright uses his superior reasoning throughout his article to tie together the evidence and statistics after he presents it. In one case, while arguing a belief that the majority of America 's high crime rate has to do with the availability of guns, Wright gives some evidence: "Australia and the United Kingdom, had dramatically lower murder rates than the US before they instituted draconian anti-gun measures" (Wright). Then he gives some statistics:"there was virtually NO effect on the overall murder rate in either nation"…"after their gun bans took effect" (Wright). But beautifully shows some reasoning with: "Yes, a person may hold up a bank with a gun, or accidentally shoot a friend with a gun, but "A person doesn 't commit murder or a robbery because they have a weapon available, they choose to commit murder or a robbery and then find the means to do it" (Wright). Yes, guns may be used in violent crimes across the United States, but Wright reasons that we have a problem with violence and not a problem with guns. Wright takes every claim presented and uses his reasoning of his evidence and statistics to discredit any good reputation the anti-gun groups had to begin with. While Wright uses a combination of evidence, statistics, and reasoning to persuade his audience, a poster can make just as strong an argument through a word picture. If you look a little closer and pay attention to every detail and not just the words on the poster, it may surprise you at what all one simple poster can imply. The first noticeable aspect of the poster is the color choice. Bright red ink is used for the common slash or "not-allowed" symbol. Bright red is also the color choice for the primary declaration of the poster. A jet black is used for the rest of the wording on the poster as well as for the silhouette of the handgun. The choice of text proves to be also a noteworthy part of the poster. The author appears to prefer simplicity over elaboration because the poster 's text is simple and yet to the point. The simplicity of the content aids in the satire of the poster, which is the last, and possibly most effective component of the poster. The main message of the poster is clear with "No Weapons Allowed" plastered along the heading. It is printed in a bold blood-red that catches the reader 's eye right away. Accompanying the title is a picture of a deadly revolver crossed out with a thick red line that matches the color of the title. The stark contrast of the bright red line slashing through the black silhouette of the handgun sends a dark warning to the reader. The poster is printed in bold but simple detail causing the reader to seriously regard its message: there are no weapons allowed and no questions about it. The poster is clearly addressed to criminals with "ATTENTION CRIMINALS" implanted across the middle of the poster in a font almost larger than the ruling itself. But I tend to believe this lends to the satirical aspect of the poster. I think the real audience of the poster is meant to be the inhabitants of this particular office building as well as any passerby. Although the poster is signed "-The Management", I believe it is safe to assume that the poster was not erected by anybody in charge. More likely is the chance of the author being someone who is trying to make a point. It appears that the author 's point is an attempt to mock the statute put into place by the real management. The reader 's first clue to the humor hidden in the poster is the fact that the poster labels the building as a "Defense Free Crime Zone". These two descriptive adjectives used to define the building are already not complimentary by themselves, but when you combine them it makes the building sound even more oppressing. What good is a building without a defense? And who wants to be in the middle of a crime zone? This less than cheery definition of the building begs the reader to continue reading so that they may be able to find an explanation behind this label. The explanation is given in the next line - "All law abiding patrons of this establishment have been disarmed for your convenience". Once again this refers to the "convenience" of the criminal the poster speaks to. The poster 's contents are thought provoking but it still has the ability to make most readers laugh yet ponder on the message as well. The poster has now effectively painted a word picture into the mind of his reader. It may not be the same picture for everybody, but the combination of techniques makes a fool out of this anti-gun idea. The dark humor used by the poster may differ vastly from Wright 's intellectual reasoning, statistics, and evidence, but they both effectively show the reader the inefficiency of gun control laws. It may take a combination of evidence and statistics to combat claims made by anti-gun groups, but in the end, similar effects can be just as effective as a word picture.

Works Cited:
Wright, Stephen E. "Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives." Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Anti-Gun Group Common Sense Gun Laws and Real Common Sense." StephenEWright.com. 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 23 Sep. 2012.
Raof, Jonathan. "Libertarian Viewpoint." Libertarian Viewpoint. Photo. N.p., 24 Mar. 2011. Web. 02 Oct. 2012. .

Cited: Wright, Stephen E. "Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives." Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Anti-Gun Group Common Sense Gun Laws and Real Common Sense." StephenEWright.com. 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 23 Sep. 2012. Raof, Jonathan. "Libertarian Viewpoint." Libertarian Viewpoint. Photo. N.p., 24 Mar. 2011. Web. 02 Oct. 2012. .