Close Reading #4 - Dec. 16 - "Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?"

"Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?"  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-do-we-have-the-courage-to-stop-this.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0

In the article " Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?" the author, Nicholas Kristof, discusses gun control. He believes that we should regulate guns in order to prevent the thousands of deaths caused by the weapon. Kristof uses the literary techniques details, diction, and syntax to show the severity of the situations guns create and that the government must act soon to prevent future problems.

The details that Kristof puts into the articles show that we are in need of new gun regulations and by having more restrictions, we can save thousands of lives annually. Kristof writes " In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect.". By adding the fact that Australia's gun laws have been very effective over the years, Kristof shows the audience the effectiveness of restrictive laws and that having them could really be worth it. Kristof also adds "The law did not end gun ownership in Australia.". This detail shows the audience that successful gun restriction doesn't mean that all guns have to be taken away. Also, this shows the many who don't want regulation because of the fear that they'd lose their guns that they are able to keep their firearms, potentially changing their view on gun control. Another detail added includes "we have required seat belts, air bags, child seats and crash safety standards. We have introduced limited licenses for young drivers and tried to curb the use of mobile phones while driving. All this has reduced America’s traffic fatality rate per mile driven by nearly 90 percent since the 1950s.". By stating the auto requirements, Kristof shows the audience an example of restrictions that are already in place without taking away the object that causes problems. He also shows through this the benefits of regulation of another problem, allowing the audience to see the advantage these rules can have.

The diction in the article shows the audience how hesitant the government is about regulating guns as well as how childish some are being about the potential restrictions. Kristof writes "What do we make of the contrast between heroic teachers who stand up to a gunman and craven, feckless politicians who won’t stand up to the N.R.A.?". The words "craven" and "feckless" show the audience how cowardly and ineffective politicians are on gun regulations, according to Kristof. By adding "heroic" as a contrast, he emphasizes how weak the politicians are. Kristof also writes "But so is driving, and we accept that we must wear seat belts, use headlights at night, and fill out forms to buy a car. Why can’t we be equally adult about regulating guns?" By adding the word "adult", Kristof makes it seem to the audience that we're being childish and immature about the potential of having restrictions on guns. By making the audience see this, Kristof may make some believe that having regulations is the mature thing to do, making it the right thing to do.

Lastly, the syntax in the article shows Kristof's understanding of some of the fears on regulation as well as gives a feeling of accusation towards the government. He writes " I understand: shooting is fun! But so is driving...". By having a fragmented sentence in the middle of the paragraph, a feeling of informality is given off, making the audience able to make a connection to his voice. Through this, he is able to show the audience that he understands that he understands that shooting a gun is something that can be enjoyable. Finally, Kristof writes "The fundamental reason kids are dying in massacres like this one is not that we have lunatics or criminals — all countries have them — but that we suffer from a political failure to regulate guns.". By adding that all countries have crazy people in the middle of the statement, the audience gets a feeling of accusation. By having that statement in the middle of the sentence, interrupting the original statement, to be followed by the fact that we suffer from political failure, Kristof clearly shows the audience the failure of the government to protect the citizens from gun abuse.

Overall, the Kristof shows the audience the benefits and importance of gun regulations. He clearly shows his belief that America needs to set some rules on guns and that the audience should think the same.