Our Blind Spot About Guns Rhetorical Analysis

“Our Blind Spot about Guns” Rhetorical Analysis Essay
American Journalist, Nicholas Kristof, in his essay, “Our Blind Spot about Guns”, addresses that if only guns were regulated and controlled like cars, there would be less fatalities. Kristof’s purpose is to emphasize how much safer cars are now than in the past, while guns do not have the same precautions. He constructs a compelling tone in order to convince the reader that the government should take more control on the safety of guns and who purchases them. Kristof builds credibility by successfully exerting emotional appeals on the audience, citing plausible statistics, and discussing what could possibly be done to prevent gun fatalities.
Kristof begins his essay by discussing how automobile

He cites reliable statistics and facts to argue that if guns were regulated as well as cars, the world would be a safer place. Kristof also includes a picture of Dodge City, Kansas from 1878 that shows an old town with a sign that reads, “The Carrying of Fire Arms strictly prohibited.” This helps strengthen his argument because Kristof is trying to say, “If they had restrictions on guns back then, why not now?” He incorporates a fact that, “Visitors to Wichita, Kansas, for example were required to check their revolvers at police headquarters” (Kristof 163.) Furthermore, authorities were trying to prevent gun violence back then just like it should be prevented today. One weakness in Kristof’s essay, is that he wants guns to be sensibly regulated like cars. But not all the regulations enforced on cars are 100% safe, just like some of the ideas that were proposed for gun safety. Overall, Kristof has a valid argument but some points in his essay could use some better thinking.
To sum up, Kristof believes guns should be regulated just like cars have been over the years. He effectively uses strong appeals to logos and pathos to build his credibility and gain the audience’s