Edwards 1

Andrea Edwards

English Rhetoric and Composition Portfolio

Fall 2015

Rhetorical Analysis

I Don’t Want to Die: Why We Need to Remember the Victims and Foster a Healthy

Conversation on Gun Control

Whether someone agrees or disagrees with gun control, the majority of sane individuals

will agree having an analytical conversation about gun control is better than staring death in the

face with a gun, or any violent weapon with the ability to deprive a human being of life. Gun

control is what has been known as a “hot button” topic in light of events and tragedies, such as

the Umpqua Community College shootings which occurred on October 1st, 2015. Professor

Joseph Harris of the University of Delaware had a first-year composition student who wrote a

paper arguing against gun control. It was not a well-written paper, although said paper had his

graduate students on the defensive with furious comments directed toward the student and his

paper “they called the writer ‘arrogant,’ and ‘condescending,’ and ‘dismissive’” (Reasoning at

the Point of A Gun). To which I find the graduate students’ comments were written out of pure

anger and rage against the first-year composition student according to Professor Joseph Harris in

his statements made regarding his graduate students (Reasoning at the Point of A Gun), and they

were based on the graduate students’ own fears of a situation such as the event at Umpqua

Community College transpiring on them at their own university. For the majority of students at

schools and universities across the country, the threat of gun violence is a real possibility.

Edwards 2

Statistics demonstrate there have been 45 school shootings in the U.S. alone this year

“and now the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. It's the 45th school

shooting in the United States in the 274 days so far in 2015, a spokesperson for Everytown for

Gun Safety tells Newsweek” (Ricninick Newsweek.com). The threat of gun violence would

provoke any person, including the most rational of people, to act on emotions. This logical

fallacy is otherwise known as emotional or ethical appeal (Aristotle 171), and several

rhetoricians, both historical and modern, have their views on the subject.

By using historical and modern rhetorical viewpoints on the emotional or ethical appeal,

and a form of repetition known as mesodiplosis, I will assert the reaction of the graduate students

was one based on emotions and not logic. Instead of reacting in the manner to which the graduate

students did in regards to the first-year composition students paper addressing his views against

gun control, fostering a healthy conversation and dialogue on gun control should prioritize

instinctual fears by addressing gun control, and the natural reactions to guns through observing

those reactions while also preserving the memory of the victims and the loss of their lives in

these tragic events.

Let’s begin by first analyzing the comment the graduate students used towards the first-

year composition student, “‘They called the writer ‘arrogant,’ and ‘condescending,’ and

‘dismissive’” (J. Harris “Reasoning at the Point of A Gun”). Emphasis is being used in this

statement by the excessive use of commas and the word “and,” although by the overuse of

commas and the extra “and” in the sentence, it only demonstrates the level of anger and emotion

used when addressing the first-year composition student’s paper. There is no logic behind the

statement; it is based on reactionary thoughts. This is also a trope used in writing to evoke an

Edwards 3

emotional appeal out of the audience; however, I will not venture completely into emotional

appeal because I wish to address the actual trope being used here which is mesodiplosis.

By using the commas and the extra “and,” the audience senses a strong emotional

reaction using mesodiplosis which according to Burke in Randy Harris’s article states, “Schemic

activity, as we have seen in Burke’s we/they passage, clusters at the boundaries of phrases

(epanaphora and epistrophe, most obviously, but also mesodiplosis, which regularly marks the

junctions between phrases) and words (alliteration is at the beginnings of words, rhyme usually

at the end); theories of arrangement stress beginnings and ends of speeches, and transitions

between sections” (5). In essence, mesodiplosis is a form of repetition whereas it is similar to anaphora

wherein the repetition is displayed at the beginning of the sentence or phrase, mesodiplosis is in the

middle of the sentence or towards, but not exactly at, the end of the sentence or phrase. Mesodiplosis is

used to emphasize or evoke a certain emotion from the intended audience, and thus was used in this case

in an attempt to prove a point to the first-year composition student that his paper and his views were not

appreciated amongst students who may have felt as though a shooting incident could befall them as well.

According to Aristotle, “the Emotions are all those feelings that so change men as to

affect their judgments, and that are also attended by pain and pleasure. Such are anger, pity, fear

and the like with their opposites” (Aristotle 214), and it is these emotions which lead to

inappropriate choices in words or speech when addressing a difficult subject such as gun control.

Instead of reacting as the graduate students did to the first year composition student, his poor

writing skills, and his defense of anti-gun control legislation, they could have chosen to respond

in another way using words and phrases meant to give constructive criticism to the student,

instead of dismissing his viewpoint. The goal is to foster healthy discussions about gun control.

Educators accomplish this by fostering conversations on gun control in a forum or venue where

Edwards 4

any and all viewpoints are welcomed in the form of well-formulated essays and course

discussions as to why there are people who have opinions regarding both sides of the gun control

argument.

Emotional appeals to which Aristotle refers to as pathetic and ethical appeals (Aristotle

173) are meant to persuade the audience into emotionally reacting towards the rhetor’s argument;

however, the audience (or the graduate students in this scenario) are dismissing the logical

appeal of the rhetor’s argument. In the case of the graduate students, their logic is lost on the

rational mind because the audience is only attending to the emotional style of the comment and

not of the logical aspect of the argument. The logos has been lost in the pathos of the comment.

Aristotle also addresses style (175), and this connects to mesodiplosis due to the form and style

being used in this comment as one based on the pathos of the comment instead of logos.

Mesodiplosis connects to emotional appeals because the additional commas, and the extra “and”

evokes an emotional response from the intended, or unintended, audience.

After the graduate students graded the paper of the first-year composition student, they

should have chosen the words of their comment more carefully. The intended audience and

receiver of said comment may have been the professor, Joseph Harris, however, the unintended

audience has currently become the first-year composition student and the academic community

as a whole, and the first-year composition student might view the comment from a reactionary

level while, on the other hand, the academic community is viewing it from an emotional and

logical, possibly ethical, viewpoint. Stylistically, the intent is to persuade the intended and

unintended audience to view the student’s writing from their emotional point-of-view, howbeit,

the academic community empathizes and acknowledges the graduate’s students point of view in

their comment, we cannot dismiss the political views of a first-year composition student. There is

Edwards 5

also a chance said first-year composition student might change his mind as he continues his

education. Until such a time comes along, our duty as academics is to foster his ideas into a

thoughtful argument and discussion about his views on gun control. This responsibility may not

sit well with various academics, but we should not settle for a biased rejection of first-year

composition discourse.

Kenneth Burke addresses “persuasive use of language” (1338). The role of the academic

and educator is to assist a student in how to use language persuasively, in similarity to the

graduate students using their comment in an attempt to persuade their professor, and generally

academics as a whole, the responses varied from what the graduate students expected. The

professor cannot believe his students commented in such a manner either, although he knew it

was a possibility as emotions were high in light of recent event from the recent school shooting.

These graduate students are sending a message by attempting to dissuade other composition or

English students from creating papers which would argue against gun control. There is a

dichotomy created from the opposing viewpoints of the graduate students and the first-year

composition student in which opposing viewpoints exist on gun control and gun legislation, and

students are essentially forced into choosing between these two viewpoints, and the majority of

them might feel compelled to choose in favor of gun control because empathically it would be

the right decision. In essence, this would not demonstrate growth or an attempt to move beyond

their comfort zone, and increase their understanding of opposing ideas by choosing what they

would believe to be the “winning side”.

Before concluding, I wish to state the need to remember the victims of gun violence as

well, and acknowledge that they are the reason discussions on gun control and gun legislation are

in continuing existence. We must never forget who they are and why this conversation continues.

Edwards 6

Although the graduate students’ natural reaction to the first-year composition students’ paper

would warrant them to write such a comment, it is the duality of these arguments which allows

for the politicians and the people to determine what the right course of action should be. Kenneth

Burke addresses “the manipulation of men’s beliefs for political ends” (1337); however, it the

idea is not to manipulate men’s beliefs to alter the course of politics and political views, rather it

is to shed light on those views so we can come to an agreement on how to create better

legislation that will allow for people on those opposing sides to have what they want. The overall

intent is to ensure all parties’ wants and needs are considered, and those who are opposed to one

side or the other do not experience any kind of hatred, unnecessary violence, or negativity due to

their beliefs.

Subsequently, I assert using historical and modern rhetorical theories based on emotional

or ethical (pathetic) appeal, and through a stylistic form of repetition commonly referred to as

mesodiplosis, the graduate students hastily and emotionally reacted to the first-year composition

student’s paper. I believe I have asserted the comment and reaction made by graduate students

was one rooted in emotions and had no logical merit surrounding the argumentative stance of the

first-year composition student’s arguments. Instead of reacting in the manner to which the

graduate students did, they should have been fostering a healthy conversation and academic

dialogue on gun control. They should have dismissed instinctual fears (for the moment) by

addressing gun control and the natural reactions to guns by observing those reactions while also

preserving the memory of the victims and the loss of their lives in these tragic events. Voicing

their perspectives regarding views, morals, and sensitivity towards the issue of the first-year

composition student’s stance on gun control; yet as educators of rhetoric and composition, they

Edwards 7

are to ensure that no matter which viewpoint a student has regarding a political issue, said

student is allowed a fair chance at being able to argue from his or her point-of-view.

Works Cited

Aristotle. Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from

Classical Times to the Present. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford of St. Martin's, 2001. Print.

Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical

Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford of St.

Martin's, 2001. Print.

Harris, Joseph. “Reasoning at the Point of a Gun.” University of Delaware. 7 Oct. 2015.

Harris, Randy. “The Rhetoric of Science Meets the Science of Rhetoric.” Poroi 9, Iss. 1 (2013):

Article 8. 

Richinick, Michele. “Another: The 45th School Shooting in America in 2015.” Newsweek.com.

Newsweek, 1 Oct. 2015. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.