Gun Shows And Gun Violence Analysis

Rhetorical Analysis Paper
2/20/14
Gun Shows

The scholarly article “Gun Shows and Gun Violence: Fatally Flawed Study Yields Misleading Results” first appeared in the magazine American Journal of Public Health in 2010. It was co-written by Garen Wintemute, David Hemenway, Daniel Webster, Glenn Pierce, and Anthony Braga. In their Journal entry they aim to convince their readers that the widely publicized case study “The Effect of Gun Shows on Gun-Related Deaths: Evidence from California and Texas” is a bunch of nonsense. “We believe the study is fatally flawed”. Toulmin’s Model, along with the three appeals to argument, are techniques frequently applied by the authors used to create their convincing argument. Right out of the gates the
authors inform us about their claim. “We believe the study is fatally flawed”. At this point you do not know as to which side the case’s evidence, but later you learn that the authors are saying that the study is flawed because not all gun sales are recorded. This means that there are many more gun sells made than there is evidence to show. They are leaning towards the side that says there is much more evidence to be found. Their perspective is that gun show DO result in gun-violence. I do not think they did a very good job at initially showing us this. I had to read the entire article twice just to understand which way the “bad” study data was leaning, and which way the authors were leaning. Once you know which way this paper is going, it is much easier to read ad comprehend. Towards the begging the paper they hit us with their first warrant AND a pathos appeal.
“We believe that the study discussed in the working paper contains serious errors in design and execution that fatally compromise its findings”. Now there warrant is pretty self-explanatory but the emotional appeal is first revealed. By using the works “serious errors” and “fatally” the authors begin to create a sense of emotion. At least from my point of view I think the authors did this well. When I read that it kind of makes me think: Dang. False case studies like these are the reasons we have poor gun control laws. Poor gun control laws lead to deaths of many innocent people. This starts to get the reader emotionally involved. Making them somewhat “despise” the researchers. “This paper, although NOT published in a peer-reviewed publication, has nonetheless become influential in the continuing debate about how to best regulate gun shows and gun commerce to prevent gun violence.”
(1857) Later on they go on to give us a more of a sense of the situation. “The study shows that “4-9% of gun sales nation-wide occur at gun shows” This is the start of where the authors start to hit us with their ethos. They show us that they are more knowledgeable than these study “researchers”. They let us know that in all reality, not all gun sells are recorded, so automatically this data is lob-sided. They inform us on things that the average reader may not know. They told us that it is legal to buy guns from private owners, and “sales by private parties can be completely anonymous and undocumented”. This hits us with the ethical appeal of argument. No criminal is going to go out of his way to get his “murder weapon” purchase documented. The authors are well informed about this, and are showing us they are logical when expressing their concerns. Throughout the whole passage they give us the logical appeal. They hit us with fact after fact, which is sometimes un-assuring that these people got their info on their own. They used things such as “Their unit of analysis is the zip code of their x week, and their models……” Things like this can easily confuse a reader, and potentially make them set down the article. At the same time they give us some very convincing data such as “The following highly favorable power calculations finds that the analysis by Duggan have less than 10% power for finding even a very large effect of gun shows on homicide”. The authors also do a good job at qualifying their argument.
They aren’t saying that gun shows are the cause for all deaths on earth. They are reasonable with their points. Some evidence “Although (gun shows) are a source of guns used in crime, gun shows are just 1 of the venues that supply firearms for criminal use on a more-or-less continuing basis.” This gives the reader a sense of comfort. These authors aren’t just trying over react about guns shows, but they have a point. They also use some of Toulmin’s structural techniques. Throughout the article they are mostly referring to homicides. In the beginning they challenge that rebuttal. They let us know that their comments on the findings largely confine to homicide, but they have “similar concerns about the study’s finding for suicide” Now this isn’t a very convincing sentence. Although homicides are violent just like suicides, it doesn’t really prove to us that they are as knowledgably about suicides, and the fact that they use both terms to add validity to their findings can be
questioned. More important than all the date they give us is the way the incorporate it with their thoughts and analysis. Overall I thought they did a good job at creating a balance between the two. In terms of effectiveness and Credibility I think they were more credible than effective, but then again this was not written for people like me so maybe I just don’t understand. I believe they are very very credible due to their titles. Of the 5 authors 3 have PHD’s and 2 MPH’s. This right away shows us the type of people writing this. In terms of effectiveness I believe it was well written for the audience. This was written for the American Journal of Public Health which is a sophisticated journal. People don’t just stumble upon this article. They are either doing research, or of a high enough intelligence to read this on the regular. The vocabulary in this passage can be difficulty, but it is very fitting for this journal and its audience. This would most likely be read by people who are either questioning the Duggan case study, or just by people curious on the subject of gun shows.

Works Cited

Wintemute, Garen J., et al. "Gun Shows And Gun Violence: Fatally Flawed Study Yields Misleading Results." American Journal Of Public Health 100.10 (2010): 1856-1860. Environment Complete. Web. 21 Feb. 2014.