February 2018; NBC News published an article, “6 proposals to reduce gun violence and how they work”. This was in direct response to the Parkland HS shooting and the ideas put forward by Trump and lawmakers. The Atlantic at the same month publishes an article on their website with the headline of “ A Case against Gun Control”, and also does make mention of the Parkland HS shooting. Both articles are a dual symmetrical fit in regards to their gun control opinions. NBC’s article mentions the revival of a legislative bill that would provide stricter requirements such as reinforced background checking on gun sales, which was prompted a couple years back at the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting in 2013. “Manchin-Toomey, introduced in 2013 after the Sandy Hook attack, would have required background checks on online and gun show sales of firearms, closing what critics call the “gun show loophole,” while exempting private sales between friends and family. One study by researchers at Northeastern University and Harvard University estimated that 22 percent of gun sales occur without a background check under the current system. Facing opposition from the NRA, the bill secured 54 votes in 2013, but fell short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.” The article further states that an idea of an AR ban/restriction would’ve prevented such casualties at another shooting; the Aurora Colorado shooting of 2012, “ The shooter who killed 12 people and shot 58 others at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, in 2012 used a 100-round drum magazine, for example, which prompted Colorado legislators to ban magazines that carry over 15 bullets.” Both examples are used in a sense to call for the thought of the victims involved in these shootings and the growing threat the menace of unchecked firearm sales are. This comparison of an opportunity to change the law and the events that transpired due to the failure of the current ones in place call for urgency within that same opportunity. In contrast, The Atlantic article “a Case against Gun Control” does exactly that. It builds a case against gun control by analyzing the headline event and drawing their own conclusion. An email included in the article states “The latest shooting has just as much or more to do with the mental health crisis in this country than guns, but let’s blame an inanimate item and not the user. It’s part of the failure to make people take responsibility for their actions that is condoned by politicians and media both. To truly fix societies problems is our greatest challenge, using a type of firearm to blame ALL societies ills is not going to solve anything. If you are not promoting a broad fix to a social problem then you are promoting a narrow “headline” grabbing stance, then on to the next”headline”.” The author points out to show that the headlines of said events are equally sad as they are diverting to the “true” attention of the issue, to which the author claims are the mental health issue in America. The email logically tries to prove their point by saying that the instrument is just a mere instrument and shouldn’t be punished for the actions of a psychopathic murderer.
“6 Proposals to Reduce Gun Violence and How They Work.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/6-proposals-reduce-gun-violence-how-they-work-n851736.
Fallows, James. “A Case Against Gun Control.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 24 Feb. 2018, www.theatlantic.com/notes/2018/02/a-case-against-gun-control/553715/.
Hello Erick! It’s interesting to see how both articles put the blame of gun violence on different things. The article’s do seem to have opposing view points on gun control which is also interesting because you get to see the perspective of different wings. It is funny how both articles used different methods of conveying their message and supporting their bias. For example, the NBC New’s article used statistics and probability to support their idea. Meanwhile, the Atlantic used mostly opinion based information to convey their message. This kind of shows how one source would be seen as more reliable than the other.
Hey Erick, I think the topic you chose on gun violence is a very important topic in today’s society that still has not been figured out. In both articles, they talk about gun violence but from different perspectives and I find that interesting the ways they approach it. Do you think the article that has more opinionated bias towards gun violence would be a credible article to read?