The ownership of guns has always been a topic of heated debate in the United States. The Second Amendment has been used frequently as a defense for owning guns, however, it is a broad amendment and was written in a very different time. Even conversations regarding the regulation of firearm providers are stifled among the cries for gun ownership, backed by the fear that the government will take away the guns of citizens. Gun owners also have a right to own their firearms, be it for a source of protection, leisure, or hunting. Molly Ivins approaches this hotly-debated topic in her essay, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns,” in which she argues her anti-gun stance by using a logical appeal. Ivins’ argument is unique due to her comedic writing style, which she uses to her advantage.
Ivins’ writing style can be described as comedic, as she opens her essay with the line “I am not antigun. I’m proknife,” (Ivins, 2016, p. 273), which is an absurd statement, as the rest of her essay focuses primarily on how unregulated gun ownership is a problem. Ivins’ comedic writing is also utilized to make a point about how the Second Amendment is often interpreted very loosely, because the Second Amendment states that A well-regulated militia may bear arms, to which she states that “Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia,” (Ivins, 2016, p. 273). Ivins’ comedic writing is present in almost every point made in her essay. This comedic style of writing is used to make the side against which she is arguing appear absurd.
Ivins’ sense of humor is also evident even in her sentence structure. In her essay, Ivins often utilizes sentence fragments, such as when she is invalidating the argument that guns themselves don’t kill people. Ivins creates a scenario in which a family argument ends in murder, after which she argues, “did the gun kill someone? No. But if there had been no gun, no one would have died. At least not without a good foot race first. Guns do kill,” (Ivins, 2016, p. 274). Ivins is uses multiple sentence fragments as a way of adding emphasis to her point, as she ends her argument with “Guns do kill.”
In conclusion, Ivins’ argument is made with a logical appeal, as she dismantles previous arguments that are pro gun ownership. Ivins’ sense of humor is used to further ridicule the side against which she is arguing, and her use of sentence fragments also emphasize her points while adding to her comedic flow of writing. Ivins’ purpose is to argue for gun control, and she uses her wit and sense of humor to further support her argument logically.
Reference:
Ivins, Molly. “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns.” The Little Norton Reader: 50 Essays from the first 50 Years. Edited by Melissa Goldthwaite, W. W. Norton & Company, 2016, pp. 272-274.
English Literature 