Mostly Tactical, Party Ideological

“ My, my, my ! Such a lot of guns around town and so few brains… put it down”

( Humphrey Bogart ). Shows many people have guns but only a few know how to control it. Matt Valentine, teacher and essayist, in the article “ Gun activist have a new craze- and it’s more dangerous than you think” suggests that concealed weapons are more safe than open carry. Valentine supports his clams by explaining guns can be a threat and lead to aggressive behavior. When people see guns, they take it as a threat. As a result, the body reacts with fear . The author's purpose is to convince the reader that open carry is dangerous.

Chris Hernandez, author and former Marine, in the article “ A ( Mostly Tactical, Party Ideological ) Argument against open carry. Hernandez supports his claims by explaining open carry weapons attract unwanted attention.

Valentine and Hernandez both support open carry is a bad idea and dangerous. In the case of Hernandez, he supports his claims by explaining open carry weapons attract unwanted attention. While he firmly states that he doesn’t “ advertise that he armed and he does not where wear anything says police… And that’s a good thing”

( Hernandez 9). By not carrying open weapons, he believes that it a good thing because he wants to be not notice and not to get unwanted attention. Showing “ the open carrier is doing nothing threatening, people around might still freak out” ( 14). Under this entire argument is carrying weapons openly attracts too much attention from innocent people who are afraid and can seem like a threat. On the other hand, Valentine has a similar point of view. Valentine supports his claims by explaining how guns can be a threat and lead to aggressive behavior. In the article Valentine mentions “ how the researchers observed that people honked more often when they saw the gun” ( Valentine 15). To point out, that people react more differently when they see a gun and they take it as a threat. He also mentions “when people see the threat, their body will respond before they even think about it” ( 15). To support his claim, it mention in the article how “ There would be some changes in the body, such as in the heart rate and respiration rate” (15). Under this entire argument is open weapons can be seen as a threat and when people see the guns, their body reacts with fear.

Valentine uses some good rhetoric in his article, “ Gun activist have a new craze- and it’s more dangerous than you think”. He has many expert testimony mention in his article to support his claims on open carry. Examples of some expert testimony used “Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony LePage repeated this experiment with 100 male students at the University of Wisconsin, sometimes replacing the badminton equipment with a revolver and shotgun ….” Both found that participants administered more electric shocks when in the presence of guns. According to Berkowitz and LePage, the weapons were “ aggressive cues” ( 14 ). Valentine uses many research and psychologists which is a powerful rhetoric because people want to trust experts. Hernandez has many rhetorical devices used in his article, “ A ( Mostly Tactical, Partly Ideological) Argument against Open Carry”. He uses appeal of fear when he talks about the danger of ending up in the middle of a gunfight with his wife and kids ( Hernandez 9). He makes the reader feel the fear where innocent people are in the middle of a gunfight and in a danger of becoming a target of a robber with open carry weapons when there are innocent people around. Hernandez has pathos used in article. There was a emotional appeal, in the story of the man with open carry weapon in the park because the woman was crying saying saying her son was saying “ Did