Argumentative Essay on Guns: Analyzing Kristof’s “Our Blind Spot About Guns”

In his essay “Our Blind Spot About Guns,” Nicholas Kristof relates the norms and expectations Americans have around automobiles (including the need for a driver’s license and the enforcement of traffic laws) to those about firearms. The author uses evidence in the form of statistics and other facts, such as mortality rates, to captivate the reader and strengthen the argument of his article. Kristof contends that firearms need rules and regulations just as vehicles do. Kristof lays forth his case after detailing the similarities between using firearms and cars. He maintains that stricter gun controls would save lives if they were implemented similarly to how automobile regulations have.

Analysis of Essay

Guns should be restricted since it is evident that they are intrinsically harmful and must be strictly managed concerning who is allowed to acquire them, if they can be shown publicly, and even how they must be kept if minors are present in the home. Kristof (2014) compares the limitations on gun possession in the United States to those on automobiles, such as the need for a license to drive. Kristof’s point is that while cars are considerably safer than they formerly were, weapons do not have the same safeguards. While all U.S. states require drivers to have licenses and register their vehicles, a federal law exception makes it possible for residents of many states to purchase firearms from unlicensed dealers without undergoing a background check. Additionally, federal law protects gun manufacturers against negligence lawsuits, even when firearms end up in the wrong hands and cause harm to minors. The author uses evidence in the form of statistics and facts, such as mortality rates, to captivate the reader and strengthen the argument of his article.

Want to improve your understanding of argumentative essays like Nicholas Kristof’s “Our Blind Spot About Guns”? Get expert guidance on summarizing articles, evaluating author arguments, and analyzing evidence for your assignments. Our platform offers personalized assignment assistance and detailed essay support to help you craft persuasive, research-based responses. Enhance your skills and ensure academic excellence by visiting English Literature Homework Helpline for step-by-step guidance and practical insights on argumentative essays and article analysis.

Author of “The Second Amendment: A Biography” Michael Waldman is cited by Kristoff. Waldman’s book sparked a wide variety of conversations about gun control at a time when gun violence was rising in the United States. Individuals were worried the new administration would force the disarmament of armed services, which consisted of all adult males of the (white) population who were legally able to purchase firearms. This amendment was drafted to allay such fears. Waldman states that gun control measures were commonplace in the nineteenth century (2015). Using statistics and data, he argues that the world would be safer if weapons were regulated in the same way that vehicles are.

Additionally, Kristof provides an 1878 photograph of the historic town of Dodge City, Kansas, complete with a sign reading “The Carrying of Fire Arms strictly prohibited” (2014). Throughout much of its existence, the National Rifle Association has advocated for sensible controls on firearms, going so far as not even to oppose the historic Gun Control Act of 1968. However, since that time, the majority of efforts to regulate safety have either been unsuccessful or made things worse, and this is why the case of automobiles is instructive. As he argues, if they had limitations on weapons back then, why not now? This lends credence to his position. He integrates the fact that “Visitors to Wichita, Kansas, for example, were required to check their revolvers at police headquarters (Kristoff, 2014).” The government was also working to curb gun violence as it does now.

Kristof employs several rhetorical devices to emphasize his argument, but comparison and contrast are particularly strong. He draws parallels between the two industries to argue that the government should control weapons in the same manner that automobiles are. His analysis of the connection between the issues is signaled to the reader via comparison and contrast words. Kristof argues here that reducing the number of annual gun fatalities may be accomplished by regulating firearms in the same manner that automobiles are controlled. At the outset of his work, he provides a true estimate of the number of yearly American deaths that occurred before the regulation of automobiles. He carefully crafts his tone to persuade his audience that the government should regulate who may buy firearms and how they are used. Kristof establishes his credibility by skillfully appealing to the audience’s emotions, giving credible facts, and outlining potential solutions to the problem of gun deaths.

Relevance of Kristof’s article

Kristof points out that we should learn to live with weapons rather than try to prohibit them altogether. Inevitably, some rules must be followed when two or more entities share space. While it is true that eliminating evil and all firearms from the planet is an impossibility, the severe threat from governments throughout the globe might help solve the situation. Since we have been able to improve vehicle safety, it stands to reason that firearms safety may be enhanced as well. Injuries and deaths caused by automobile accidents have decreased, thanks partly to safer vehicles, stricter seat-belt rules, and fewer young drivers. Legislators may take cues from the car industry when improving public safety. Initially, they may implement stricter criteria for possessing weapons.  Legally possessing a firearm in America is often far less of a hassle than being a licensed driver. Also, given how far we have come technologically, we should be able to use it to aid with gun control measures. There must be a way to employ technology to make firearms less dangerous. Finally, automobiles are an integral part of daily life; weapons are unnecessary. People need to feel safer, and that means taking guns more seriously.

According to Susan Barsy’s “Should We Treat Guns More Like Cars?” piece, reduced gun violence may be achieved by rethinking how firearms are discussed and refocusing attention on the risks and responsibilities associated with gun ownership. Most law-abiding gun owners in the United States are not the issue. Careless, criminal, insane, or irate gun users are the root cause of gun violence. Guns are just tools. The cultural norms of our society are just as influential as the legal framework when determining the prevalence of gun violence (Barsy, 2012). More and more research is finding a correlation between the ease of obtaining weapons in the United States, the prevalence of guns in society, and the prevalence of gun violence. Regulating gun ownership is difficult due to the Second Amendment, but attitudes and practices around firearms may be altered.

When individuals on opposite sides of the gun control debate have a dialogue, it rapidly becomes so polarized that progress is halted. To break the strategic and ideological impasse, we need fresh perspectives. The conversation has to shift from inanimate items (weapons) to living beings. It’s a struggle even to accept that the issue of gun violence exists (Barsy, 2012). Witnesses of gun violence may feel compelled to take action to reduce reckless gun usage. A flaw in Kristof’s argument is that he believes firearms should be subject to the same reasonable regulations as automobiles. However, not all restrictions implemented on autos are completely safe, just as not all of the solutions suggested for gun safety are completely safe. Still, they should avoid the common misconception that limiting access to firearms would solve the underlying issue of gun violence. Law-abiding gun owners, who make up a sizable majority, oppose measures that will stigmatize and criminalize their hobby.

Conclusion

The government should reduce the potential for gun violence with sound gun legislation and a preventive mindset. Additionally, eliminating or severely limiting the ability of at-risk children and other people to get firearms should be a priority. Improving lethality assessment and background checks may help with this goal, as can prosecuting domestic abusers and other dangerous criminals more aggressively. To argue that stricter gun regulation is necessary, Kristof draws a connection between automobiles and firearms and historical occurrences. Therefore, the proof and utilization of sources other than the author’s perspective make Kristof’s argument more persuasive.

References

Kristof, N. (2014). “Our Blind Spot About Guns.” The New York Times. Web. Masters, Jonathan

Barsy, S. (2012, September 12). Should we treat guns more like cars? American Inquiry. Retrieved January 19, 2023, from https://americaninquiry.com/2012/09/26/should-we-treat-guns-more-like-cars/

Waldman, M. (2015). The second amendment: a biography. Simon and Schuster.