Analysis Of It's Time To Ban Guns By Phoebe Maltz Bovy

On December 10th, 2015, Phoebe Maltz Bovy published her article, “It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.”, on the progressive New Republic website. This article was published eight days after the San Bernardino attack of December 2nd, 2015. This article explores why the United States of America should ban every gun in the country. Bovy asserts her claim that all guns should be banned by using short sentences, quotations with emphasis on comparison, rhetorical questions, and anaphora to fortify her points. The author uses short sentences in several places throughout the article. Her use of short sentences are well placed, frequent, and impactful. She begins the first paragraph with two short sentences for emphasis of her argument, “Ban guns.

The end of the first paragraph includes three sentences that feature three instances of the word ‘Not’ at the beginning of each sentence. “Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns.”, this use of anaphora empower the emphasis of her point to the reader. With each use of the word she clarifies her viewpoint to the reader so they understand the call for action demonstrated in the article. Her usage of anaphora is effective enough to warrant more usage throughout the paper to ensure the reader ponders her

In paragraph seven, she presents the case that people that have lived without guns should not be overlooked as snooty just because they have lived without them. She uses rhetorical questions to justify her position that gun ownership is not a cultural tradition, but rather just about the act of owning guns itself, “I mean, must it really be spelled out what’s different? It’s absurd to reduce an anti-gun position to a snooty aesthetic preference.”, and also defends her position by rejecting the opposing viewpoint. Paragraph ten features another rhetorical question that involves a call to action from the reader after explaining the goal of banning all guns, and why the act is not impossible she says, “That could never happen, right? Well, certainly not if we keep on insisting on its impossibility.” With this question Bovy is trying to get the reader to consider the position as possible and make the perspective of impossibility seem ridiculous. More thought provoking rhetorical questions are featured in paragraph eleven, “Ask yourself this: Is the pro-gun side concerned with how it comes across?”, and, “More to the point: Does the fact that someone opposes gun control demonstrate that they’re culturally sensitive to the concerns of small-town whites, as well as deeply committed to fighting police brutality against blacks nationwide?”