An Analytical Essay on “let's Be Honest, Gun Control Opponents” by Nick Laure

An analytical essay on “Let's Be Honest, Gun Control Opponents” by Nick Laure

The Second Amendment guarantees American citizens the right to bear arms, but now days gun control is a hot potato in the United States. In the United States several mass shootings have happened, and therefore some have called for a regulation of the gun law. - But that isn’t just a walk in the park.  Many politicians and civilians in different interest groups support the second amendment and have no intention to agree on a regulation of the guns. Nick Laure posted a blogpost about the problematic when it comes to guns. The blogpost “Let's Be Honest, Gun Control Opponents” shows that Nick Laure is strongly against guns and tries to destroy the favourite arguments of the gun control opponents.

Nick Laure starts the blogpost very unformal by the sentence “Hello, gun rights advocates!”

(side 1, line 1),  and he continues the unformal tone though the whole blogpost so the blogpost appears casual. The way he uses the language, makes it feel like a conversation, and his audience is the gun control opponents. For an example; He uses interjection to make it more casual; “Oh, and please don’t allow me to forget to touch on one of your favorite arguments, the one that suggests we might as well outlaw all things that could possibly be utilized as weapons.” (side 3, line 63) But at the same time the language in the blogpost is aggressive, and you aren’t left with any doubt about how he feels about guns. He accuses the gun control opponents, his imagined audience, of being uncaring and careless for their fellow citizens: “Just admit it. Say it out loud. Your gun rights are more important to you than other people’s lives.” (side 1, line 10) He claims that the gun control opponents care more about their gun rights, and therefore are willing to turn a blind eye to the fatal consequences of everybody owning guns.

Nick Laure also uses rhetorical questions, mainly addressed to the imagined audience of the gun control opponents; “You probably don’t personally know any of the victims of mass shootings,

and you think you’d be able to use your gun to defend yourself in the event that one 15 occurred. But forget everyone else, right?” (side 2, line 13) The rhetorical questions make the gun control opponents seem untrustworthy.  In the blogpost sarcasm is also frequently used, and this also support the aggressive language. The sarcasm also helps him to make the gun control opponents’ most used arguments seem stupid and untrustworthy. “I haven’t met my local gun fencer yet, but I’m sure I’d find him super approachable, as would any mentally ill kid from the suburbs.” (side 2, line 37) By using the word “sure”, that I also have marked in the quote, he makes it very clear, that he is being sarcastic, and again pointing out that the gun control opponents’ arguments are stupid.

Nick Laure is a very talented writer and is very good at arguing despite the unformal tone. In this blogpost the arguments are mostly to show why the gun control opponents’ arguments are incoherent.  

He especially points out that arming more civilians most likely won’t prevent mass shootings. (side 2, line 18) But it won’t work either arming more guards, because the shooting will always be a surprise, and that will give the shooter an advantage. (side 2, line 26) Nick Laure knows if the gun law was regulated of course people could still get guns illegally, but it would be much more difficult than it is today. It will especially be harder for mental ill kids, who often are responsible for mass shootings, to obtain an illegal gun. (side 2, line 34) But Nick Laure isn’t totally naïve either, and do not believe that if the gun law was regulated there would be no mass shootings; “Listen, nobody thinks gun control will stop all shootings, but I refuse to believe anyone could think it wouldn’t stop any shootings” (side 2, line 52) He introduce statistics about how a regulation of the gun control in Australia and numerous U.S states have contributed to less gun deaths which is very positive.