Lara Stallings
March 8, 2016
English 3080
Dr. Beth Burmester
Creative Response Paper Number 3:
Molly Ivin’s Effective Persuasive Arguments for Gun Control Using Rhetorical Tools
Molly Ivin has opinions about gun availability in the U.S. and the arguments presented by
pro-gun advocates: she hates guns, thinks we need gun control and often refers to her adversaries
as “gun-nuts.” Instead of writing preachy, fact-filled articles where readers might be prompted
to poke holes in generalized, subjective assertions made by a writer they might see as an “antigun lunatic,” she employs rhetorical tools to make simple points that do not allow much room for
rebuking, even by the most ardent NRA member. She adopts a style and voice that encourages
reading and thinking by those on the left, right and middle of her issue. In the two articles
contained in our coursepack – Gun Madness and Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns –
Ivin directly states her ethos, which is in contrast to other key pro-gun groups. She pours
elements of pathos throughout in an effort to understand and reach her audience and motivate the
readers through their emotions. Finally, logos is evident in the straightforward arguments and
supporting information presented to persuade the audience see the logic of her opinions. The
strength of Ivin’s articles is not found in the arguments themselves or the persuasive back up – in
fact, they are really quite flat without statistical or factual contents -- rather, the application of
rhetoric within the arguments themselves lures her audience to stay with her until she has
finished setting forth her points. She applies humor and sarcasm in ample dose to treat the
doldrums that might set in with an audience bored by a topic often debated.
Stallings 2
Ivin’s argument in both articles is that we need fewer guns – really no guns – but
certainly some sort of regulation of guns. This argument might promptly place those on the
other side to become defensive, but she recognizes her audience and invites pro-gun readers to
listen by stating in Get a Gun, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns, “I am not antigun. I’m proknife” -- a little humor that baits the reader to continue reading. Shortly thereafter, she makes a
point that finds common ground with that audience, “As a civil libertarian, I, of course, support
the Second Amendment.” By finding a point they likely both agree on, she begins to set forth
her argument. In the article Gun Madness, she again acknowledges those in her audience likely
have different opinions when she states in the beginning that she is anti-gun. She reiterates this
point when she admits her pro-gun friends tell her she seizes whatever opportunity she can to
make arguments for gun control and the abolishment of the legalization of privately owned guns.
In this article, she informs the reader that she is going to argue one of their points – the idea of
more guns resulting in less killing. A reader holding contrary opinions to hers is likely curious
how she will argue their views given her stance on the issue.
Ivin endeavors to hold her audience by choosing a familiar, friendly tone that seeps with
humor. This writing style brings emotions of friendliness between two groups on opposite sides
of the argument. The friendly tone also keeps those who are frustrated with pro-gun advocates
engaged – overall, she is polite, respectful and light. Ivin’s arguments reflect her feelings that
the presence of guns in our society is not what the founding fathers intended and the arguments
for their continued availability are illogical. She recognizes the need for guns for purposes of
national protection – “a well-regulated militia” – but adds the truth that fourteen-year-old drug
dealers are likely not what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when the amendment was drafted. In
another example, she dissects the pro-gun arguments comparing the danger and death by cars to
Stallings 3
those by guns. The tone becomes more caustic as she points out the fact that at least cars and
their drivers are regulated and licensed. She ends these argumentive points with the obvious
difference between the two things – guns have no other purpose than killing and we allow
untrained individuals to have them.
Logos is key in her articles: careful arrangement to prompt cognitive evaluation of
simple, sarcastic arguments that build into strong, serious points, and then relax back to funny
comments such as “Want protection? Get a dog,” and aspects of knives being safer because
people do not usually die while cleaning them nor do they cause random injuries because the
killer actually has to “catch” their intended victim. She employs inductive and deductive tools as
well. By example, in Gun Madness, she responds to the assertion, “mass killings have been
taking place in white, middle-class settings, and wouldn’t happen in ghettos or barrios because
more folk there are packing,” by stating “if the murder rate in white, suburban America were the
same as that in inner-city ghettos, we’d be confiscating guns by now.” Thus, she takes a specific
comment about mass killings and reaches a generalized conclusion about gun control: inductive
reasoning.
Enthymemes and maxims appear throughout and are effective in utilizing obvious,
common points that individuals on both sides likely know and can agree. For example, she
points out that our nation is no longer the “frontier” it used to be when hunting was necessary; it
is now an urban society and this image likely evokes visions of grocery stores and hunting
amongst the aisles, instead in the woods. Again, she uses this tool in response to the pro-gun
groups’ attempt to discount the simple fact that guns are involved with death: “Guns don’t kill
people” their campaign states. Ivin responds succinctly, “Guns do kill.” Her point made without
setting forth point after point of truth about the danger of guns.
Stallings 4
Logos and ethos successfully work to persuade the audience, but it is elements of pathos
that will pull them to the other side. Her words work not to isolate, but to invite the audience to
listen and laugh and think. She seeks to keep the tone friendly and kind, but underneath anger
stirs and pops out at oppurtine moments, before going back below the surface. The friendly
emotions and limited use of anger are consistent with the Aristotle’s instruction on usage in On
Rhetoric. Her motivational desire is the chance that maybe she will compel a gun advocate to
indignation and action in logical support of her arguments. She also seeks to affirm the thoughts
of those who see her point of view, further fuel their anger, and prompt them to action. When
she writes of the weak arguments and maneuverings of gun advocates, she also adds shame to
the elements of pathos.
By the end of her articles, even the most ardent pro-gun supporter likely grasps that their
mouthpieces – the NRA and other right-wing spokespersons – fail to present facts and evidence
that truly support the need for universal gun access pursuant to the freedom established by the
founding fathers in the Second Amendment. Ivin points out simple and direct flaws – even
errors – in the statements made by her opponents. One thing unique and important about Ivin’s
articles is the consideration of kairos. While she responds to certain events and publications in
her articles, the writing is not cause and effect . This allows her articles to have a sort of
timelessness that keeps them alive, relevant and persuasive even as gun laws change and other
events related to gun control arise. Ivin's writing effectively recognizes her potential audience
and works to hold their attention and invite them to the conversation. Her strong points are fitted
smoothly into the articles at the right moment when the audience is likely plugged in and
nodding to the rhythm and humor created by the words. It would be a fair guess that Ivin catches
helps a few gun nuts see the points of anti-gun fanatics in a different light.