In the article written by Adam Gopnik entitled “Shootings,” he speaks about troublesome shootings, gun problems, and social issues in the United States compared to other nations. He believes that gun laws should be more restrictive, and that there is no reason a private citizen in the United States should be able to own a handgun. His argument is invalid; there are many reasons that someone would and has the right to own a gun. Gopnik rambles throughout the essay and does not provide enough support or structure to have a convincing thesis.
He barely made a point. Gopnik has plenty of missed opportunities to get his point across. In the beginning of the essay he successfully grabs the readers emotionally. Everyone at that point would be ready to hear about how to prevent something so horrific from happening again. However, he goes on to talk about how Americans react by trying to heal instead of treat. If he had placed his thesis saying that no one should be able to own a handgun after the opening story it would’ve been much more moving and convincing.
People would’ve thought that if this man had not had a gun the children wouldn’t have died. Instead he placed the thesis at the end of the story without impact.. Gopnik then goes on to say, “Every nation has violent loners, and they tend to have remarkably similar profiles from country and culture to the next” (675). Once again, he goes rambling on about something other than what his thesis is. The fact that every nation had loners is irrelevant to the thought that no one should be able to own a gun.
It seems that he has a lot of thoughts that surround gun laws but has trouble putting them together in a way that it makes sense to the reader. Gopnik compares and contrasts America to other countries; this would be a very tasteful way to show how The United States has a more violent culture, but he changes the subject before making that point.. In the second to last paragraph, Gopnik states that “we can’t reduce the chances of someone killing people with a rifle.
But the point of lawmaking is not to act precisely as possible, in order to punish the latest crime”(676). Gopnik contradicts a lot of his solution in this example. He says that even if people can’t have a hand gun doesn’t mean they can’t shoot them with something else; doesn’t this open up a conversation that maybe it isn’t about the weapon at all? Shouldn’t the government try to act precisely? Gopnik’s last paragraph is a rambled mess.
He begins to talk about how “Hunters need rifles and shot-guns” (676) and then he offers his thesis, “There is no reason for a private citizen to own a handgun” (676). Gopnik needed to wrap his essay up in the last paragraph not introduce a new topic: the need for hunters to have guns. He throws his thesis in at a random time with no support at all. Gopnik should have explained “why there is no reason” for a citizen to own a gun or given examples of ways problems can be solved without them.
There are a million and one reasons why somebody should own a handgun and he fails to talk about them, or try to reason with gun owners whatsoever. Gopnik’s essay was unconvincing. He misused the imagery at the beginning of his story and rambled on many topics but never made a solid point. He contradicted his thesis in the two last paragraphs. He did not make his thesis clear to the very end of the essay, where at that point it had no support and was irrelevant to what he had just written about. Gopnik needs to get his thoughts together.