Rhetorical Analysis Of Get A Dog But Get Rid Of Guns By Molly Ivins

In the text, Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns, the author, Molly Ivins, makes much use of the concepts surrounding logos, ethos, and pathos. Logos appeals to the audience’s reason, making way for logical arguments. On the contrary, ethos appeals to the speaker’s status or authority, making the audience more likely to trust them. Lastly, pathos appeals to the emotions, attempting to evoke feelings of anger or sympathy, for example. In a comical and sarcastic tone, Ivins highlights banning the use of guns in exchange for knives and dogs as forms of protection. The author’s dialogue and how she refers to whether or not the general use of guns possesses a negative connotation is unclear. Nonetheless, it is clear that Ivins uses sarcasm,

Her direct quote referencing Thomas Jefferson helps to strengthen her arguments and prompts readers to question and examine whether or not the founding fathers of this country would agree and recognize such a profound statement. Additionally, she supports her argument by breaking down the Second Amendment in the constitution word for word, in hopes that readers will imply its literal meaning as she presents it. “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed” (Ivins). Ivins proceeds to claim, “And I believe it means exactly what it says” (Ivins). It is apparent to readers that this affirmation is a personal belief; however, it does provide more insight into her

Specifically, she expresses the use of pathos by using a reference to domestic violence. Although Ivins fails to provide concrete numbers in her argument, she does, in fact, utilize factual information. Specifically, she states, “Anyone who has ever worked in a cop shop knows how many family arguments end in murder because there was a gun in the house” (Ivins). This conveys to the reader that domestic violence situations result in murder directly related to the presence of guns, provoking readers to consider the awful nature of murder with a gun. This evokes feelings of sadness and despair in readers as they may connect a personal life experience to her argument or feel sympathetic towards the mere illustration. Readers are given the opportunity to put this into perspective and ultimately associate guns with murder in the home, making Ivins argument more persuasive. “Did the gun kill someone? No. But if there had been no gun, no one would have died” (Ivins). Phrasing like this, undoubtedly sparks some form of emotion for readers, reflecting the author's attempt to influence their judgment on the existence of guns in American