Gun control has been a huge topic and debate ever since the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School and shows no sign of dying down anytime soon. While gun control laws do lessen the amount of gun related crimes, more still needs to be done to further such crimes. Things such as implementing laws that target the dangerous people who commit these crimes, giving more power and funds to the police and other crime preventing units, and by restricting gun access for people who have had previous violent offenses. Jake Novak and Lois Beckett write two well thought out articles on how to deal with gun control in the US. While the two articles do have similarities in how they do both have reasons as to why gun control isn’t the answer in some cases, they both represent different ideas. Novak writes his article from a standpoint that gun control will never be …show more content…
We already know how to stop the violence” where he makes his argument against gun control laws and what the government should be doing instead of implementing stricter gun laws. He targets an audience of people who live in the United States and are wanting to better understand and see his opinion on gun laws. Novak begins his argument on why gun control is not the answer by saying, “But here's the funny thing, in a tragically laughable way of course: we already know how to reduce gun violence and gun crimes because we've already done it many times before… we enforced the laws” (Novak par. 3). He describes his argument by using his emotions to put forward his thought that instead of trying to push for stricter gun control laws all the government needs to do is enforce the laws that are already in place, which is the use of pathos. His use of humor opens up a context to where it is very easy to understand the point that he is trying to get across and makes it easy for the reader of the article to understand what he wants in place of gun