On Friday, Slate Magazine's crime correspondent Justin Peters wrote about another "'accidental' child shooting death." The article talked about the author's viewpoint on the issue of adults, especially parents, owning guns. The beginning of the article referenced a recent child shooting death on Wednesday, in Tyler, Texas. Soon after, the author expressed, "Trenton Mathis didn't have to die." He further added that the death of the innocent child was the country's fault, its "indifference toward the basic principles of gun safety." He made it clear that he was criticizing both parents and the government of not taking precautious measures to prevent such disasters, thus causing him to consider them "accidental deaths" and revealing that "the frustrating thing is that they are preventable." Peters' solution ideas to prevent future deaths were soon followed by a list of "accidental deaths" that would continue to grow unless adults started to be more careful.
Peter's purpose for writing this article was to reveal his stand and opine about the issue of possessing handguns. His article seemed to be primarily directed to parents who own handguns at home as well as the government. The passage clearly calls for the adults' attention to keep the guns out of the children's reach and the government's concern to consider the issue more seriously. The choice of words contribute in building the author's tone, which would best be described as one of boldness and even criticizing. This is especially evident when Peters said, "His senseless death is a direct result of this country's baffling indifference toward the basic principles of gun safety," and "If you can't be bothered to take two minutes to unload your handgun and put it in a gun safe, then you shouldn't own a gun." Throughout the article, Peters' position regarding the issue was evident all thoughout ("It's a point I've made before, and it's one that I'll continue to make as long as children continue to die"). He did not only present the evidence that would contribute to his stand, but rather, also considered the opposition (such as the third paragraph). In addition, Peters used a point that would be used against him and turned it in such a way where he could further reinforce his argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment