Fisher 1

Bryce Fisher

English 111- 970

Mrs. Carroll

December 4, 2019

Rhetorical Analysis on “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns”

Gun control has been a crucial issue in the United States for the past 20 years.

Critics can argue that the gun control argument started before the 21st century.

However, recently in the past decade gun control has been a sensitive issue, as a rise

in gun violence in teenagers has occurred. In Molly Ivins article “Get a Knife, Get a Dog,

but Get Rid of Guns”, she provides an entertaining argument for gun control where she

creates a mockery of her credibility and supplies limited logical facts.

Ivins creates a strong emotional appeal to the audience by mentioning scenes of

family violence and teenage drug dealers. She creates a sympathetic atmosphere for

the audience by providing these examples of family violence and teenage drug dealers.

Ivins says, “Anyone who has ever worked in a cop shop knows how many family

arguments end in murder because there was a gun in the house” (Ivins). This quote

creates a feeling of remorse among the audience because if there had been no gun, no

one would have died. Ivins also provides an example of teenager drug dealers roaming

the streets terrorizing citizens with guns. This example creates a disturbing and fearful

image for the audience because is shows the corruption that teenagers can fall into.
 Fisher 2

Ivins provides a pitiful appeal to the audience's sense of logic and reasoning. Her

use of facts and statistics weakens her argument, and it contradicts her central

argument. She states that “there is no rational for guns in this society” (Ivins), because

citizens do not hunt for their own food and the United States is becoming an urban

society. Both facts weaken her argument because they are essentially false. Many

people still hunt for their own food and large parts of the country are still very rural

places. In the United States there are many major cities, but these cities make up a

small part of the country itself. Most of the country is still very rural and still continuing to

develop.

Ivins provides a pathetic attempt to establish her credibility with the audience.

She starts off by stating that she is a civil libertarian, one who wants less government

control and more individual rights. She argues in support of gun control, which

contradicts her political affiliation because libertarians seek more individual rights and

less government control. This causes her to lose credibility among the audience.

Throughout the article her tone is very immature and childlike. Her diction throughout

the article makes her seem very immature as she uses words like “gun nuts” and

“hooey”. She makes a mockery of herself in front of an audience who feels strongly

about this topic. Ivins would have been able to make a strong case for her credibility of

she did not mention her political affiliation and if her tone throughout the article wasn’t

so immature.

Molly Ivins might have been able to persuasively influence some readers by her

appeal to the audience’s emotions. However, she mocks her credibility and supplies
 Fisher 3

limited logical facts throughout the rest of her article. She heavily favors her own

opinion, while not giving any room for other opinions to be heard.

Works Cited:

Ivins, Molly. The Short Prose Reader. "Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns".

10th ed., McGraw-Hill, 2003