PB1A - Letters To Editors About Gun Control

     As a foreigner of this country, I found a bit hard connecting with the gun control problem until I recently heard that one of my acquaintance was killed by a gun accident a few years ago. Since I was able to find a lot of letters to editors about the gun control, I decided to pick some of the letters and analyze them.

     Here's the first letter to editors about the gun control.

The writer, Scott Wales, throws a heart-breaking story to the audience. It was about a gunfire accident that happened right in front of him 2 days earlier he wrote the letter.

     The second letter was written by Bill Huntington; he wrote about the catastrophe that happened in Florida recently.

     Last, but not least, the third letter was posted on "The Salem News" by the writer Seth Mascolo. He also started out his story by talking about a recent gun accident that happened in Thousand Oaks, California.

     As I was reading all three examples, I was able to come up with multiple genres of the letters. They were:

• Introduction of themselves: Names, background, etc...
• The purpose of the letter: WHY they are writing for
• Aggressive tone: They were STRONGLY asserting for a serious gun control
• A recent case of a gun accident: Their MOTIVATIONS for writing such letters
• Mentioning the inconsistency of Second Amendment

     Breaking down more specifically by each pieces–the first letter was again written by an actual victim of one of the gun accident that happened in D.C. He also described how terrifying it was back in the days when he had to fight a robber for his life. His goal/ purpose of the letter was direct and precise. He wanted all the guns removed from all men's hands. It was hard to say that he was convincing or using a persuasive voice because it felt like to me that he's almost disgust at the fact that nothing is actually being done for these happenings. It was very obvious that this writer is angry towards the people and also the government. He ended up his letter by mentioning how the Second Amendment is a contradiction, and it shouldn't be kept if innocent people keep dying. 

     The second letter was also within a similar context, but he focused more on proving the reason why the Second Amendment is wrong and that it should be corrected. He was using much more of a persuasive tone than the first letter's writer. His goal of the letter was to persuade the audience to agree with him in regards to the contradiction of the Second Amendments. He explained how the guns back in days and nowadays are completely different–the guns back in the days took an experienced soldier at least 2 minutes to reload but nowadays' guns shoot 30-50 rounds per minute–and that changing condition should've made the restrictions of the arms much stricter.

     The third letter was very similar to the second letter; his purpose of the letter was matching with the second letter's purpose. However, the difference was that his words were more logical and much more easy to understand. He first highlights what it says on the Second Amendment. To quote his words, he said, "The Second Amendment says, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" Later on, he adds, "The person who went into the Borderline bar last Wednesday night was not part of a militia. He was clearly not regulated, and his goal was not providing security. This was an unstable individual whose goal was to kill and strike fear into the hearts and minds of those affected and those who heard about this tragic and senseless episode." He logically explained to the audience what it is wrong and because of those reasons, the Second Amendment has to be re-examined in such context.

     Overall, I was able to witness how each writer was reacting to the tragic gun accidents and their attitude towards the Second Amendment. By telling the audience about the real cases of the gunfire outbreak, they were trying to persuade the readers by appealing to pathos. As a reader myself, I was able to recognize the urgency of this ridiculous problem, and I'm hoping that the gun control would be handled by one's good hand one day.