Savannah Crowley

19 September 2018
ENG 111 – 815

I will be discussing “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns” by Molly Ivins in this

essay. Molly Ivins shares her view on firearms and the Second Amendment. Ivins states

“Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state” (Ivins).

Ivins’ main argument throughout this article is that guns should only be given and used by “well-

regulated militia” (Ivins) and not the common people. Throughout this article, the use of

emotional appeal, credibility, and reasoning will be analyzed.

In Ivins article, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns”, the use of emotional

appeal is very evident. Ivins 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). Ivins uses

this example to appeal to her audience’s emotions by putting them in the situation. As her

audience reads this article, gun safety around families is brought to the readers’ attention. Giving

the readers a personal example to relate to captures the emotion appeal in the article.

In the piece ““Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns”, Ivins emphasizes the

reasoning behind her article with her approach on the issue with facts and reliable information.

Ivins states in her article “And I believe it means exactly what it says: "A well-regulated militia

being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall

not be infringed" (Ivins). Ivins uses The Second Amendment as a credible source to show she

has done her research on gun control. Another good example of reasoning in Ivins article is

"Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia. Members of wacky religious

cults are not part of a well-regulated militia. Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is
 Crowley 2

destroying the security of this free state” (Ivins). Ivins uses logos to prove there is very logical

reasoning as to why there should be more control over the use of firearms.

Throughout “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns”, Ivins does not give her

audience a lot of information to believe she is credible. She includes a few facts occasionally

throughout her piece, but she mainly focuses on her personal beliefs rather than facts in her

article. She establishes herself as a “civil libertarian” rather than a moral authority (Ivins). Ivins

has enough credibility to pull her readers in with facts, but other than the facts, Ivins does not

give any other information of her being a credible source. Throughout the article, Ivins uses

more pathos and logos to get the point across to her audience.

In “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns”, Ivins uses a forceful, harsh tone

throughout the article, as if she is trying to peer pressure her audience into agreeing with her

beliefs on guns. The feeling of being forced into agreeing with Ivins viewpoint is very evident

due to her tone throughout the piece. Also, Ivins statement “You want protection? Get a dog”

(Ivins) digs at her audience who support gun rights and The Second Amendment. Whether her

audience likes a subtle tone or a harsh, forceful tone, Ivins used a rigorous approach in her

article.

Overall, Ivins has a good approach on her topic of gun control and shows effort to get her

point across. Although she got her point across, the article would have had more luck if she had

more credibility, and the lack of ethos weakens the article. The article is a good read and

relatable to the audience through the uses of pathos, ethos, and logos.
 Crowley 3

Works Cited

Ivins, Molly. Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns.

https://clev.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-1425335-dt-content-rid-

8355295_1/courses/46348/MollyIvins_GetaKnife.html