By Blake Kim
*this is an English assignment for AP Lang where I was tasked with analyzing the rhetoric used by an author in writing an argumentative piece
Oppenheimer, Andres. “Assault weapons nearly killed Trump: Why aren’t we talking about banning them?” Miami Herald, Miami Herald, 20 Sept. 2024.
In “Assault weapons nearly killed Trump: Why aren’t we talking about banning them,” Andres Oppenheimer, an editor in the Miami Herald, advocates for banning assault weapons, supporting his argument with statistics on their dangers. Utilizing the assassination attempts on Donald Trump, a candidate for the upcoming 2025 election, Oppenheimer draws attention to the ease of acquiring these weapons and the risks they pose to the citizens of America. Additionally, Oppenheimer references the U.S. Constitution and argues the extent of the right to bear arms, explaining that civilians do not require semi-automatic guns in order to protect themselves. Similarly, he disproves an argument claiming that assault weapons are necessary for hunting, stating that ethical hunting relies solely on traditional rifles, which require accurate and clean shots.
Throughout his article, Oppenheimer illustrates the detrimental effects of access to assault weapons, creating a demanding atmosphere in his article, as he criticizes gun activists and their unethical ideals. Oppenheimer’s urgent language such as the “alarming spread of assault rifles” foregrounds his imperative tone; this phrase evokes an immediate sense of danger as the utilization of the word “alarming” suggests that worsening gun violence demands action. His pressing phrase “new normal in America” also suggests a troubling acceptance of violence, as Oppenheimer attempts to denormalize the threats of armed shootings. As he argues the extent of the right to bear arms, Oppenheimer describes these weapons as “semi-automatic killing machines,” invoking a sense of terror, as he rebrands the normalized name of assault weapons. Evidently, his imperative tone allows the audience to understand the urgency of banning semi-automatic weapons. He focuses on an audience of media publishers and civilians of America, emphasizing their power to ban these firearms. He pressingly attempts to warn the voters of America to “elect candidates who support reinstating the 1994-2004 ban on assault weapons,” emphasizing the country’s need for voters to consider the detrimental effects of dangerous firearms. Similarly, the press holds the power of persuasion, as Oppenheimer states “It’s time for the media to focus,” calling for immediate action and attention. He writes to his audience in an attempt to start saving lives, urging voters to contribute to the ongoing battle against the right to own high-capacity and dangerously powerful firearms. Additionally, Oppenheimer notes the various disadvantages of owning assault weapons by referencing grim statistics correlated with gun violence to enhance the logic and credibility of his argument. He informs voters that “there have been at least 2,373 mass shootings in the United States just in the last four years.” Including this tragic number of deaths enables his audience to grasp the undeniable toll gun violence has taken on civilians all over America. Furthermore, while criticizing the ease of purchasing semi-automatic weapons, Oppenheimer states “there are more than 24.4 million AR-15 and AK-style rifles in civilian hands in the United States,” as well as “weapons used in some of the worst mass shootings have made more than $1 billion in revenue in the past decade.” Oppenheimer’s utilization of these numbers emphasizes the unsettling amount of semi-automatic ownership, which highlights the growing risk of gun violence. His usage of direct statistics strengthens and enhances the credibility of his argument, allowing voters to understand the increasing issue of assault weapon ownership. Through his imperative tone and logical arguments, Oppenheimer sparks concerns about public safety, empowering his audience to understand the threats coming from gun violence.