Berlow Gun Control

Persuading the Public on Increasing Gun Control
The article Who the N.R.A. Really Speaks For is written by Alan Berlow who has had writing appear in Harper’s and Atlantic Monthly, and is the author of Dead Season: A Story of Murder and Revenge. The target audience for this article is people who have more liberal views that have the ability to change the way the N.R.A. functions. This article was published in The New York Times soon after the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon with the purpose of saying that the N.R.A. is not the voice of the public, or safety, but is currently the voice of criminals. The author’s stance on the issue is that gun owner’s views are not being represented properly by the N.R.A., and that gun

One example of Berlow’s strong word choice is using many synonyms for killed, like slaughtered and massacred. These two synonyms allow for the feeling of the word to sink in better, as opposed to killed or murdered. The article Berlow has written is persuasive because of his solid writing skills, one component of which is his syntax. One sentence in which Berlow displays his knowledge of syntax is in the sentence “[...] the N.R.A. has single-handedly dictated the shape of the debate over guns for decades” (Berlow 1). The way he has arranged the sentence instills the comparison of the N.R.A. to a dictatorship and the understanding that they have not had people’s best interests at heart for many years. The author’s sentence fluency often connects paragraphs together in a way that allows for the meanings of his words to be fully understood. This is evident in the sentence “[...] Americans should understand the [...] role the N.R.A. plays, not only in thwarting sensible gun safety laws but also in undermining law enforcement by abetting gun traffickers, criminal gun dealers and criminal gun users” that is followed in the next paragraph by the sentence “The N.R.A. [...] often professes to speak for all gun owners [...]. But on some issues, most gun owners clearly reject the party line.” These two

The article does in fact close with a statement that challenges others to think differently. The sentence “[...] the N.R.A. was no longer the voice of law-abiding gun owners, but rather a voice for criminals” (Berlow 4) is the one that does just that. The article is relatively eloquent by returning to key pieces mentioned earlier in the editorial at the end of it. Lastly, the conclusion certainly unifies Berlow’s argument. He states outright that the N.R.A. is a voice for criminals which signifies that it is a corrupt organization. All of these components are what make this editorial very compelling and