The Constitution of the United States of America states, “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” (The Second Amendment). Americans have the right to own guns guaranteed by Second Amendment. In the article “The ban on mentally ill people buying guns was not ever based on evidence”, Jeffrey Swanson argues that there is no evidence to support a ban on people who have mental health problem from buying guns. Therefore, the ban on mentally ill people buying guns should be repealed and politicians should improve the gun restriction rule for dangerous people. Swanson uses an appeal to pathos, statistical data, word choice and tone to make this
…show more content…
For example, he indicated that “The gun restriction rule is a well-meaning policy” but “despite its good intentions … take away the gun rights of a large category of individuals without any evidence” (Swanson). The author still supposes that it is a good rule even though he does not agree with the gun restriction rule on mentally ill people. However, the gun restriction rule needs to change and modify because there is no evidence indicated that the people with mental illness will harm themselves or someone else. Additionally, Swanson uses the word “unfortunate”, “heavy-handed” and “bad regulation” to express his emotion about the Republican will repeal the gun restriction rule on mental ill people based on the Congressional Review Act (Swanson). He also thought that eliminating a “bad regulation in the hope of getting something better in the future…” …show more content…
In Florida, there is no difference using guns to harm others between people with serious mental health and general adults “(about 213 vs. 217 gun crimes per 100,000 people per year)” (Swanson). According to the study published at Duke University School of Medicine, “… they were only slightly more likely to die in a gun-related suicide (about 13 vs. 9 gun suicides per 100,000 people per year)” (Swanson). Additionally, 48 percent of suicides in general adults compared to only 20 percent of suicides in serious mentally ill people involved guns in Florida (Swanson). Moreover, the author also uses emotional appeal to emphasize his arguments. For example, in the beginning of the article, he had a strong emotion with statement “I opposed the rule when it was first established. It wasn’t supported by evidence, and it was far too broad” (Swanson). And another example in the conclusion of the article, he uses heavy tone to express that the rule to ban mentally ill people from buying guns is a “bad regulation” and it need to be repealed to have better future. Additionally, the organization of the post is easy to follow because he begins with the claim, followed with the explanation, supported evidence and ends with the
For example, he indicated that “The gun restriction rule is a well-meaning policy” but “despite its good intentions … take away the gun rights of a large category of individuals without any evidence” (Swanson). The author still supposes that it is a good rule even though he does not agree with the gun restriction rule on mentally ill people. However, the gun restriction rule needs to change and modify because there is no evidence indicated that the people with mental illness will harm themselves or someone else. Additionally, Swanson uses the word “unfortunate”, “heavy-handed” and “bad regulation” to express his emotion about the Republican will repeal the gun restriction rule on mental ill people based on the Congressional Review Act (Swanson). He also thought that eliminating a “bad regulation in the hope of getting something better in the future…” …show more content…
In Florida, there is no difference using guns to harm others between people with serious mental health and general adults “(about 213 vs. 217 gun crimes per 100,000 people per year)” (Swanson). According to the study published at Duke University School of Medicine, “… they were only slightly more likely to die in a gun-related suicide (about 13 vs. 9 gun suicides per 100,000 people per year)” (Swanson). Additionally, 48 percent of suicides in general adults compared to only 20 percent of suicides in serious mentally ill people involved guns in Florida (Swanson). Moreover, the author also uses emotional appeal to emphasize his arguments. For example, in the beginning of the article, he had a strong emotion with statement “I opposed the rule when it was first established. It wasn’t supported by evidence, and it was far too broad” (Swanson). And another example in the conclusion of the article, he uses heavy tone to express that the rule to ban mentally ill people from buying guns is a “bad regulation” and it need to be repealed to have better future. Additionally, the organization of the post is easy to follow because he begins with the claim, followed with the explanation, supported evidence and ends with the