Persuasive Analysis #3 (Gun Control)

“Chicago misfire on banning solution to gun homicides” is a political insight to the issue of gun control. Although the article is interesting and thoroughly written, Chapman uses pathos to adhere to the emotions of the people. He literally feeds off the anger of the people to help justify his stance on gun control. This emotional motivation was an intelligent effort by Chapman, considering most Americans detest the notion of breached safety policies. Though the article is just a newspaper clip, Chapman appears to be hoping that the people would become emotionally enraged and dispute the present regulations on gun control.

Within the article, Chapman’s political stance on gun ban’s not only confirms evidence of ethos but, also evidence of emotional and Either/Or fallacies. The specific type of emotion fallacy used by Chapman is Argumentum Ad Misericoridam, an emotional appeal concerning what should be a logical issue during a debate. Instead of directly directing the issue, Chapman uses emotions to distract the audience from the facts at had. He grasps that the law-abiding United States citizen had the right to protect his/herself in the time of danger. The specific type of Either/Or fallacy used by Chapman is “False Dilemma, the result of when a writer builds an argument upon the assumption that there are only two choices or possible outcome s when actually there are several. Chapman informs the people “Gun control hasn’t worked as a remedy for crime. So what makes anyone think the answer is more gun control?” which can be translated to mean that there are only two answers to the sinister issue, one is gun control and the other is no gun control. And no gun control is the logical solution.

Although Chapman was fighting for the due privileges of gun owners, he used emotional pathos and fallacies to appeal to the mind of the people. However, this plan could possibly backfire because quite a few people reading this article would probably make decisions based on emotional outrage than making a logical decision based on the proposals of gun issues of both sides of the law.