This article by the New York Time's editorial team argues for stricter gun laws, but doesn't take the radical view of completely eliminating guns that seems all too common on social media politicians. This is accomplished by using the most recent shootings as reasons why gun laws should be more strict than they are now, while still recognizing the near-impossibility of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, while still allowing normal citizens to own them.
They also use a method of clarifying what kinds of guns are used in these killings, to show that they are targeting a specific type of weapon, rather than guns as a whole, clearly stating, "Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership." This helps them to both state and accomplish their overall purpose of showing a more moderate liberal view on gun control laws, that may appeal to both sides of the argument, especially with the hot debate after recent events.
No comments:
Post a Comment