Précis 1 : The Gun or The Person? Nicholas Kristof,two time Pulitzer Prize winner, in his opinion based column on Nytimes.com,”Lessons From the Virginia Shooting” contends that America must learn from the plethora of gun deaths and create serious gun laws that protect lives of Americans. In fact, he insists that we don 't need a “modern prohibition,” but at least “universal background checks” in a “serious effort” to “reduce gun deaths by… one third” (Kristof). Kristof employs three rhetorical devices to bolster his argument. First, a specific example of Australia handling shootings in a sincere efficient way.Revering Australia, Kristof notes that Australia’s “homicide rate was almost halved” by the country enforcing “tougher firearm restrictions” (Kristof).Therefore America should mimic Australia’s example and introduce stern gun laws to protect U.S. citizens. Second, he appears to logos while illuminating the fact that America has more regulation on objects that contribute less to death of Americans than guns. Logically, he persuades that America “should address gun deaths as a public health crisis” …show more content…
I agree with Mr. Kristof, gun violence has been ignored enough by the government and should be one of the governments priorities. Removing guns from America is too radical and “politically impossible” with some americans, yet Kristof finds a perfect balance with introducing “universal background checks,” “limits on gun purchases,” and “more research” on how to save lives from gun violence (Kristof). I admire how Kristof’s argument finds compromise between gun control supports and negators, for removing guns from the U.S. permanently would be unconstitutional and a violation of inalienable rights. I strongly agree that America should rectify gun laws since there are a plethora of people “waiting to go boom” and are qualified to get their “hands” on unrestricted weapons. The American government would save a multitude of lives if it were attentive with gun