At least 59 dead and 527 wounded after mass shooting at the Route 91 Harvest Festival.....Article Written by Peter Aldhous
Overview of Las Vegas Shooting
Stephen Paddock, 64, opened fire at the Route 91 Harvest Festival on October 1st, killing at least 59 people and injuring 527 others. FBI agents stormed the hotel from which he was shooting and found Paddock dead after he alledgedly took his own life. The motive for the shooting is still unknown, and police investigations are under way. Paddock had a total 23 firearms in his hotel room in Mandalay Bay Hotel, most of which were automatic, or altered to fire like one. ISIS has claimed responsiblilty of the attack, saying that they influenced Paddock in the first place. However, the FBI has determined that no international terrorist group was involved in the events that occured Sunday night.
Why Are Mass Shootings On the Rise?
As more and more of these mass shootings take over headlines, many start to wonder why there isn't more being done to stop events like these from happening in the first place. The reason: We don't know how. In Australia, after a shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, 1996, the government banned firearms such as "pump-action shotguns and semi-automatic rifles". This resulted in a decade in which there were no shootings where 5 or more people were shot and killed. However, weapons that were already in circulation were also bought back at market price from those who had purchased them. In the U.S, an assault weapons ban was also placed on weapons that were being made to reduce the amount of ammo that could go in a weapon. But it did nothing for weapons that were already in circulation. In addition, following the shooting at Sandy Hooks Elementary in Newtown, Conneticut, experts at John Hopkins recommended a new, "carefully crafted" weapons ban, along with a ban on high capacity clips. This advice was not followed, and Daniel Webster, head of the Center for Gun Policy and Reaserch, told BuzzFeed News "I can't say I'm optimistic" about whether the U.S would begin to crack down on gun policy. Many would argue that this is our problem, as the U.S is not willing to compromise or change the current gun policy we have today.
The author clearly feels very passionate about the subject of gun policy in the United States and how that contributes to the rising number of mass shootings in recent years. However, he does not seem to have a very personal connection with the incident, besides the feeling of resilience against the shooter and support towards the families and loved ones of those killed in the shootings. The authors choice of words reveals a judgmental tone towards the steps being taken to prevent these mass shootings. He seems to feel that not enough is being done, and that the cultural and political opinions of people play a role in why we don't crack down on gun control
Rhetorical Devices Used by the Author
The author appeals the most to logos through the use of graphs depicting the number of deaths caused by mass shootings, studies conducted by well known institutes on gun control, and the steps taken by other countries and the effects that they had on mass shootings over a prolonged period of time. For example, the author refers to a study conducted by John Hopkins a few weeks after the Sandy Hooks Elementary shooting, and came to the conclusion that a ban on high capacity clips and enforcing gun control laws was key in preventing mass shootings. In Australia, similar measures were taken and resulted in a decade of no mass shootings. These were all examples given in the article, which are not only credible, but also use research conducted by professionals.
The author projects a judgemental tone. which is supported by his choice of words and his opinion on what the measures that are being taken by the government should and should not be. He points out previous mass shootings as if to show that little has been done to prevent these events, and his use of logos supports his claim. He also points out all the negative things that are being done and their effects, while omitting anything good that has been attempted.
The purpose of the author is to persuade the reader that change in gun policy is not only possible, but also necessary if we are to prevent tragic events like th shootings at the Route 91 Harvest Festival. It is trying to convince the reader to see that the way of handling these situations is from the roots, rather than just isolating those that we consider a threat.