The debate surrounding gun control is one that can be very emotional and is often fueled by anger. This makes it an argument that is hard to balance if that emotion isn’t utilized effectively. In her piece “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns” columnist Molly Ivins fails to properly utilize emotion in a way that gets the reader on her side. In the article “The Progressive Gun-Control Charade” law professor and author Nicholas Johnson stays level-headed which, ultimately, works to his advantage in making him more agreeable. Both writers manage to add something to the discussion; however, Johnson argues his case just a bit better. Ivins’ clearly states her case: get rid of guns – all of them. While her unwavering conviction condemning the usage of guns entirely can be considered admirable, her overpowering anger works against her. She puts herself on one side of the extreme in such an aggressive way it alienates herself from being understood by the other …show more content…
She mostly focuses on semantics for a large part of her argument, continually bringing into question the meaning of “a well-regulated militia”. Ivins’ quotes the Second Amendment and then follows it up with “Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated militia” (384-85). Johnson uses most of his argument to highlight the lack of communication and honesty within the political system regarding gun regulation. Johnson calls out dishonesty as a way to gain clout by saying “Progressive politicians pander to a core liberal constituency with gun-control rhetoric, all while chasing the votes of the 42% of American households, according to Gallup, that own one”. The core of Ivins’ argument is subjective; the core of Johnson’s can be seen in actions of others. This gives Johnson credibility and tangibility to his