Rhetorical Analysis on Gun Control

Nicole Cebak
ATF Gun Control awareness for the unaware.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

The Visual Analysis of Josh Sagar

The image that will be explored here initiated from a Progressive Cynic
Refuting Anti-Gun Control Arguments. This scrutiny will examine this visual
image for the linguistic origins of ethos, pathos, and logos. The envisioned
viewers characteristics, the tenacity of the image, the communication it delivers
and the tactics used by the author to attain their purpose will also be considered. To
help the reader recognize some points being made about this image, an additional
image will be highlighted only with the intent to clarify the authors pompous
approach.
Purpose of the Image and its Message
The image advocates that the author is using this image to make an
observation on the Anti-Gun Control Argument in the United States of America.
The communication of this image is given out that the regulation between cars
versus guns can be a major debatable topic. The purpose of the image is to
recognize why the photo draws a contrast to regulations of cars and how they
should be incorporated with guns as well. The author for this image is trying to
coax the idea that if people try to entice a comparison between cars and guns, the
regulations on guns and cars solely advocate that, since both have the probability
to be perilous. Either way the regulations on cars should be translated to analogous
margins on guns.
Audience Characteristics
Subsequently the image is making a politically and historically dogmatic
explanation. This explanation is directed to those who are a part of the NRA
(National Rifle Association), the unaware public, and to the fatalities of family
members who have been affected by the treacherous gun situation.
Ethos
Although Josh Sagar does not use his reputation or credibility to directly
influence the reader, his popularity as a political writer on the website The

Progressive Cynic reinforces his message and persuades the reader substantially.
This popularity only adds to his credibility and reliability on discussions of
political issues. Overall, this source is more effective and emphatic because of his
reputation for relaying insightful knowledge to his readers. The constituent of
ethos in this politically and historically dogmatic elucidation is biased. Since the
explanation makes a suggestion that the cars versus guns is to understand that
although cars do kill may people on a regular basis. It was never a true intention,
cars are always for transportation for someone or something. Unlike guns their
purpose is too always kill a particular object for a reason of harm

Pathos
Provisional on the spectators, the image might have dissimilar effects. An
NRA member might think this image is disagreeable and come off affronted by
how it could reproach their rights of the second amendment. Having the
regulations on guns like cars could potentially cause a huge disagreement between
the NRA and a citizen who wants a gun without regulations. People who were
victimized, affected or are concerned citizens would also disagree with those who
want guns unregulated. An example an Anti-Gun control advocate would impose
is, Gun control was imposed by dictators like Hitler and Stalin, and thus it is, by
definition, bad and something that puts us on a path towards becoming an
autocratic regime. Through empathy the gun regulation might seem a bit too
controlling and domineering and almost portrays totalitarianism. In context this is
entirely historically improper. A modest detail that a dictator like Stalin the
immoral one had reinforced something does not mean that gun versus car
regulation is a malicious prospect. Although these tyrants are guilt-ridden of such
horrendous delinquencies, they also do have guidelines that can be established as
moral authority. Using appalling scenes of what a ruler did to outbreak a worthy
dogma that they chanced to upkeep in their time, is not a lawful dispute in a
discussion of rule. An example, Fidel Castro, Cuban dictator, may have

committed terrible crimes against political enemies, but he also supports universal
health care and a strong public health system. These understandings of the
regulations between cars and guns, is relatable, if both are dangerous and can kill
people, then both arms should be regulated as advocated by the creator of the
image. And it is imperative to understand that the safety of humanity is important.
Our lives is important, and with these regulations that equally suffer the same
consequences and drills like cars go through so should the morality of gun control
be considered.
Logos
The creator is inquiring the spectator to consent evidences that are not yet
indicated, thus their reason can be defined as personal. Since politically this gun
regulation has not been written as a finality, it must be accepted that the upcoming
may yet authenticate the authors meaning from the print. At existing phase,
however, the superiority of the reasoning in this appearance is debatable due to
disagreements between two associations and between citizens who advocate with
one another. This image would be reasonably sufficient to custom as a preliminary
argument to use as a consideration about gun control/regulation and if it should be
implied just like cars do.
Strategy
The image here is notorious because it constructs the tautness between rights
and safety and how much is too much government interference in the situation of
cars versus gun regulation. For somebody who is in contradiction of gun control
would argue Since car accidents kill more people every year then guns, why dont
we ban cars? To argue with this statement, is purely, guns are implements that
have merely one tangible usage; to eradicate belongings. Guns exist for only the
aims to impel a minor ammunition at a firm rapidity to a precise object, which the
objective is evidently to cause bodily suffering. With countless other possessions
that can be hazardous even if they are not envisioned, but guns have no objective
other than to assassinate someone or something. Thus, they must be preserved
otherwise. Even though cars have been in numerous mishaps and have killed
countless people, the general purpose is to enable carriage. When the car is used
properly, it is solely a device for conveying public or entities. The foremost

dissimilarity amongst cars and guns in this discussion is the point that cars have
upsides and assets despite initiating some destruction, while on the other hand guns
have no abiding features. The utmost benevolent justification for guns is that it can
be termed as surviving to consent moral individuals to protect themselves from
immoral individuals by threating them with demise. If cars were like guns and
aided no persistence but to enable viciousness, then there should be provision for
firm rules of them as it should be projected on guns. The decline of gun
accessibility in our humanity would aid ease the rampant of gun fierceness that we
are existing in and would protect countless lives.
Citations
Josh Sager-January 2012, Refuting Anti-Gun Control Arguments, the Progressive
Cynic
http://theprogressivecynic.com/debunking-right-wing-talking-points/refuting-gunenthusiasts-anti-gun-control-arguments/comment-page-3/