Substantial Commentary #1

            “America Used to Be Good at Gun Control. What Happened?”, by Robert J. Spitzer argues the government should do more, place more regulations on gun control, to prevent the wrong people from procuring destructive weapons. In my experience mentioning gun control creates the great divide, you have those for and those opposed. Spitzer avoids arguing to have gun rights dismantled entirely and takes a more logical route in suggesting we tighten the reins on regulations. In depth background and personality checks, mental competency tests, and realistic necessities. (i.e. you don’t need a silencer to use a gun for self-preservation.)

            Spitzer uses evidence of alterations in gun control throughout history, even referring back to the 20’s and into modern day, using the shooting in Las Vegas as an example. The use of a wound so fresh proves to be a very successful method because it evokes an emotional response from the public. Spitzer suggests that the government follow the example of New York, which does extensive character background checks. A topic he has personal experience with, as it is the same process he used to obtain his pistol permit. I did notice no evidence was cited in this article, although most of his examples can be fact checked without. It would be ideal for every article to contain direct citations to the source of their information, holding them accountable for what they publish.

            The plea to place more regulations on gun laws directs our attention to; who might the intended audience be? My conclusion is Congress, who Spitzer suggests is attempting to repeal the 1934 N.F.A. background check along with other requirements to own a silencer. This effectively supports his argument because it combats that silencers are not safe. They prevent civilians from hearing gunfire. A sense that allows them the ability to avoid the area or contact the authorities in a hostile situation. The second intended audience is those who support more lax gun laws. I believe his argument may reach their ears as well, because he isn’t attacking citizens right to own guns, he is arguing the process in which they do. If you can pass a mental competency test as well as have a clean record, your right to own is safe.

            Opinion based articles are inevitably laced with emotion, in this scenario you can detect Spitzer’s dismay and frustration regarding the government’s inability to control who owns these guns. He does admit to understanding not all signs of an unstable person present themselves prior to such an incident, and with this there is no possible route for control. Supplying a counter argument to his own demonstrates his ability to be rational about the situation. This aspect of writing is important because through showing understanding you allow the other side a moment of being understood. Even a moment break through may allow you to persuade an audience, or enable them to be more sympathetic to your cause.

            A well written article can be very impactful in politics. If it is fair, logical, and informative it can tip the opinions of those on the fence about issues. Spitzer’s article may pose as an important wake up call for the community, or it may inspire people to veer in the opposite direction. Either way in times like these, it’s clear something must be done and political authors are influential to the public, hopefully they all strive to be honest and correct before publishing their work.