The sound of gunfire has no place in a healing environment. With over 250,000 deaths each year worldwide, firearms contribute significantly to public health, especially in civilian urban centers. Many firearm deaths globally are the result of homicides. The tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February 2018 claimed 17 lives and marked a turning point in the national gun control debate. Emma Gonzalez gave a compelling speech for the 2018 March for Our Lives rally where she honored her fallen classmates, and this speech became a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over gun control in the United States. As a survivor, Gonzalez leveraged her personal experience to advocate for stricter gun laws. Her speech resonated deeply with the audience, which included lawmakers, advocates for gun …show more content…
The connection between these two quotes lies in their shared emphasis on advocating for active action and cooperation when tackling issues of gun violence. The initial conclusion of this speech is that it illustrates a very gripping argument, particularly Gonzalez’s emotional appeal to the audience. Yet, when analyzing it closer to detail on her rhetorical strategies, it becomes clearer that while it is effective in evoking powerful emotions and raising awareness on gun violence, there are times where she could’ve been more persuasive. It’s clear Gonzalez utilizes pathos to engage her audience emotionally, yet she could’ve made her argument stronger by adding more logical reasoning supported by evidence. By providing more solid data on firearm incidents, societal impacts, or offering specific solutions would enhance her credibility and strengthen her argument. While Gonzalez’s approach touched many listeners, additional ethos elements might have changed many hesitant policymakers towards stricter gun control