Close Reading #4: Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?

“Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?” by Nicholas D. Kristof illustrates the urgent need for the American government to regulate guns more effectively in the light of the school shooting in Connecticut. His use of statistics and detailed descriptions of other countries’ gun control policies, syntactical use of rhetorical questions, and reasonable and yet emotional diction, create an argument based on reason but backed by emotion.

Kristof uses statistics and detailed information about other countries’ efforts to control the availability of guns to effectively convey the necessity of stricter gun regulation in America. In the statement that “Children ages 5 to 14 in America are 13 times as likely to be murdered with guns as children in other industrialized countries,” he uses both the strength of numbers and the shocking contrast between America and other first world nations to illustrate the great disparity between them. If he had merely said, “a lot of kids are dying in America compared to other countries” without any statistics, he would not have produced the same shock effect in the reader. Once again, Kristof makes good use of statistics regarding the benefits of gun regulations when he says, “…if we could reduce gun deaths by one-third, that would be 10,000 lives saved annually.” This statistic intensifies the gravity of the situation by changing mere statistics into lives, demanding both a logical and an emotional response. By using Australia and Canada as examples of how these mass shootings have been diminished through strict and active gun regulation, Kristof forces the reader to look critically at the American government for not taking the appropriate actions when other countries have laid out a roadmap towards effective gun regulation.

Kristof’s use of diction attempts to emphasize his argument’s foundation on reason and rationalistic thinking, but he continues to subtly evoke the audience’s emotion in support of his views throughout the article. Early on in his article, Kristof calls on his audience to “treat firearms rationally…” because “The United States realistically isn’t going to bad guns, but we can take steps to reduce the carnage.” By calling on the reader’s reason and rational thinking, Kristof leads the reader to read the article without fear of extreme, emotionally-driven solutions. This allows Kristof to present his argument at the end of the article in a more drastic way and the reader will still likely think that he has a fair and reasonable argument. What is interesting is his choice of the word “carnage” in the very same sentence. While the word is quite accurate in describing the tragic shooting in Connecticut, it gives greater impact to the situation than if he had used “deaths.” In his final thoughts, Kristof uses the most rational of language when he describes how America has “required seat belts…introduced limited licences…tries to curb the use of mobile phones…All this has reduced America’s traffic fatality…” This paragraph’s emotionally empty diction leaves the reader unprepared for the emotional punch of his final lines: “Some of you are alive today because of those auto safety regulations. And if we don’t treat guns in the same serious way, some of you and some of your children will die because of our failure.” Kristof’s simple diction in this final thought only goes to intensify the drastic situation he presents.

Regarding syntax, Kristof demonstrates a love of rhetorical questions in place of statements to end his paragraphs. For example, his first sentence ends with “Why can’t we regulate guns as seriously as we do cars?” By doing this, Kristof allows the reader to start thinking about the questions for themselves, instead of just listening Kristof’s argument. Another time, the rhetorical question “What do we make of the contrast between heroic teachers who stand up to gunman and craven, feckless politicians who won’t stand up to the N.R.A.,?” gives the reader a moment to contemplate this thought and to come up with their own answer, which is most likely one of disgust.

Kristof’s use of details, syntax, and diction Kristof presents a reasonable argument that is still full of emotion.

Link to Article:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-do-we-have-the-courage-to-stop-this.html?_r=0