Close Reading December 16

This article I read can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-do-we-have-the-courage-to-stop-this.html?ref=opinion

      After the recent violence in Connecticut, many editorials have been written arguing for various methods of preventing similar crimes in the future. Among these is an article written by Nicholas Kristof titled "Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?". In the article, Kristof argues for increased regulation on firearms, saying such regulation will greatly reduce the number of violent crimes in the United States. Throughout the article, Kristof uses strong diction, quantitative details, and syntax to create a though-provoking argument.

      In the article, Kristof uses carefully chosen diction to make his point and opinion powerful in a subtle way. He uses words that have certain connotations, for example he describes the politicians, whom he clearly blames for their inaction, as "feckless" (paragraph 7). Later he criticizes politicians again, saying Obama had a given a "moving" speech. This word generally has a positive connotation, but that connotation is one of emotion rather than of literal motion, and Kristof uses that to contrast what is currently being done from the strong action he thinks should be taken. For most of the article, Kristof's diction is mechanical and logical, but with a few choice words such as these he changes the opinion of the reader. 

      The details of the article are perhaps what makes the argument the strongest. By presenting numerous facts and statistics, Kristof is able to make his argument logical and convincing. He presents statistics comparing gun control in the US to that in other countries, such as Canada and  Australia, saying how restrictions on firearms there led to a clear decrease in violent crimes. He also makes comparisons with restriction on automobiles, citing the long list of regulations on automobile safety, which makes the lack of regulation on the obviously more dangerous things, guns, seem absurd. Finally, with a slightly satirical tone, he compares regulation of guns to that of ladders. He cites the regulations that exist on ladders, which are quite extensive, and then notes that guns cause over one hundreds times more deaths than ladders annually, but are not as strictly regulated. The statistics are the basis of Kristof's argument in the sense that they make his points hard to challenge.

      Finally, with syntax that challenges the reader, Kristof drives home his point. Throughout the article, he writes almost as if he were directly addressing the reader. This begins right in the title: "Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?" The use of the first person plural pronouns brings the reader into the text, empowering him or her to take action. The rhetorical question is thought provoking, and could possibly even cause feelings of guilt or defiance. Kristof continues asking rhetorical questions and including the reader through the use of pronouns throughout the article. He concludes it with the "Some of you…", again using a pronoun that includes the reader directly. Altogether, Kristof's use of these three literary tools create a powerful and convincing argument.