RHETORICAL ANALYSIS ESSAY DUE MAY 1 2020
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ESSAY:
Structure: Follow the three-part, multi-step guide below to complete a descriptive analysis, rhetorical study, and an examination of special constraints around your second rhetorical artifact.
Note: what you completed week-to-week in the writing exercises for Artifact 1, you are now completing in essay form for Artifact 2.
Length: Your essay should be 6-8 pages, not counting your title page, abstract and references. Coming short of this page count will result in deductions.
Sources: You must have 5-7 credible, documented sources in the text of your paper as well as in the reference list.
Checklist:
• Does the paper have a clearly formulated Thesis Statement?
• Does the body of the paper develop the key words from the Thesis Statement?
• Does the paper have a clear and appropriate title?
• Is your paper relatively free of grammatical and mechanical errors?
• Is it formatted professionally, strictly adhering to APA standards?
• Has the paper been spell-checked and proofread?
• Are the paragraphs developed and in order?
• Is your paper within the page count?
• Does it have a Works Cited/Reference page?
• Do we have clear transitions between our points?
• 12 point font, Times New Roman. Double-spaced.
TAKE SOME TIME TO LEARN YOUR COMPUTER. ALWAYS BACK UP YOUR WORK. SAVE YOUR WORK OFTEN AS YOU WRITE.
Introduction: Catch our attention and introduce your social issue. Talk about your rhetorical artifact as an example of your issue. End your introduction with a strong, three-part thesis (in one, at most two sentences) statement. Introduction is usually one paragraph, but making it two would be fine as well. Sample thesis statements:
A descriptive analysis, a rhetorical study, and an examination of special constraints on [rhetorical artifact] reveal how this artifact works to illuminate [Social Issue].
[Social issue] can be better understood through a thorough descriptive analysis, a rhetorical study, and examination of the special constraints on [this artifact].
Body: For the body of the paper, follow the order of the sections listed below. This essay is broken up into three sections:
Descriptive Analysis: Give a full, detailed understanding of your rhetorical artifact using resources of evidence, argument, organization, and language.
Rhetorical Context: Discuss the opportunities and challenges in your rhetorical act related to the audience, the subject/purpose, and the rhetor. Talk about resources to overcome or enhance these challenges and opportunities.
Special Constraints/Assessment: Discuss the special constraints that affect the artifact’s ability to impact the social issue.
Conclusion: Open with a paraphrase of the thesis. Return our attention to your social issue. Review your rhetorical act. Leave your reader with a strong concluding thought.
Section 1: Descriptive Analysis
1. The six rhetorical purposes (page 15)
The six rhetorical purposes are:
a. Creating virtual experience
b. Altering perception
c. Explaining
d. Formulating belief
e. Initiating action
f. Maintaining action
Examine your rhetorical artifact in light of these six rhetorical purposes. Which of the six is the best fits?
There may be more than one purpose, but in this writing exercise, focus on just one. So for this writing exercise, you would 1) claim that X type of rhetorical purpose was used. Then 2) offer proof of that—why can you make this claim? Then 3) tell me how well your artifact puts this rhetorical purpose to use. (Following this format satisfies the critical equation.)
2. The seven elements (page 30).
Of the seven elements, two are of interest for this assignment.
• Persona. The role the persuader takes in addressing the audience. Think of things like good cop/bad cop; teacher; friend; pastor; reporter; clown; etc.
• Tone. The persuader’s attitude towards the subject (Detached, emotional, satirical) AND the audience (Personal/authoritative/supplicant).
Complete a critical equation for Persona and Tone for each of your three rhetorical artifacts. So for each artifact, you would 1) claim that X type of persona or tone was used. Then 2) give me proof of that—why can you make this claim? Then 3) tell me how well your artifact puts this persona/tone to use.
3. The VASES—Visuals, Analogies, Statistics, Experts, and Stories.
(See page 87 for a brief overview, but you’ll need to look at the entire chapter 4 for a full understanding.)
Describe how your artifact uses evidence to persuade in light of your social issue. Use whichever elements of VASES offer the most compelling inquiry on your artifact. Remember that this should be structured in the Claim + Proof + Analysis structure. So:
1. Claim that X type of evidence was used. Then
2. Give me proof of that—why can you make this claim?
3. Finally, tell me how well your artifact puts this evidence to use in regards to your social issue.
4. The dimensions of rhetorical action.
We aren’t always convinced by purely logical reasons—sometimes psychological, social, and personal reasons convince us as well (see page 118).
Think of each as these as on a continuum—that is, it isn’t 100 percent on one extreme or the other, but more likely a blend of 70/30, 60/40, etc.
Purpose
Instrumental —————————————— Consummatory
Argument
Justificatory —————————————— Ritualistic
Structure
Logical —————————————— Associative
Language
Literal —————————————— Figurative
Evidence
Factual —————————————— Psychological
For this writing exercise, choose one continuum and describe where on that continuum your artifact lies. (Do so in paragraph form—I don’t need a diagram.)
This should be structured in the Claim + Proof + Analysis structure. So:
1. First, claim that your artifact is placed somewhere on a continuum for a certain dimension of rhetorical action. For example, “This artifact is mostly figurative, but it contains a few literal elements as well.“ OR: “As an entertaining film, this piece is almost purely consummatory.”
2. Then, give proof of that—why can you make this claim?
3. Finally, tell how well you think it works in this case.
5. Organizational patterns (Page 145).
How is the artifact organized?
Sequence
A. Chronological—by time
B. Narrative—story
C. Spatial–direction
Topical
A. Parts — a subtopic (breaking into chunks—unique to the subject)
B. Perspectives — familiar divisions (common, often-used categories)
Logical
A. Causal—cause/effect
B. Problem/solution
What is at least one organizational pattern on display in your artifact? How does this organizational pattern help promote its perspective on your social issue? (If you do not think your artifact demonstrates any of these organizational patterns, prove it—show me by process of elimination how none of them fit.)
Remember that this should be structured in the Claim + Proof + Analysis structure.
1. Tell me what organizational pattern(s) you see at work. Then
2. Give me proof of that—why can you make this claim?
3. Finally, tell me how well you think it works in this case in light of your social issue.
Section 2: Rhetorical Context
6. Resources of language (See page 171-174)
Think of these as continuums.
Formality ————————————- Informality
Precision ————————————- Ambiguity
Literal ————————————- Figurative
Economy ————————————- Redundancy
Plot your artifact on one of the continuums of style (for example, 70 percent formal, 30 percent informal). Choose the continuum that offers the most compelling analysis. How does this resource of language help promote its perspective on your social issue? (Note: If you’ve explored the literal—figurative continuum in a previous assignment, please select a new one) If you do not think your artifact demonstrates any of the styles, prove it—show me by process of elimination how none of them fit.
Remember that this should be structured in the Claim + Proof + Analysis structure.
1. Describe where you feel your artifact falls on one of the continuums. Then,
2. Give me proof of that—why can you make this claim?
3. Finally, tell me how well you think it works in this case in light of your social issue.
7. Rhetorical Context: Audience-related problems. (From chapter 8)
For this portion, we want you to consider three of the four types of audiences. One of the types of audience, the empirical audience (i.e., anyone who happens to hear the message), we won’t worry about for this essay. The other three types of audiences are…
1. The target audience, the ideal audience at whom the act is aimed. The target audience is the most likely to be responsive.
2. The agents of change or VIP audience, those that have the capacity to do as the rhetor wishes, who can make changes. Only some members of any given audience will have the capacity to do what you desire of them. Effective rhetors aim their messages at those who can do what they desire. Agents of change are not only those with the power to act, but also those who can influence them.
3. The role the audience is invited to play by the rhetor, the created audience. What persona does the rhetor want the audience to play? As a rhetor takes on a persona and role, audiences are invited to play roles and take on one or more personas. Audiences should be able to see themselves in the roles they are asked to play. An audience must not only have the power to act, they must believe they can.
Remember that this should be structured in the Claim + Proof + Analysis structure.
1. Identify in thick description one of the three types of audiences. Then,
2. Give me proof of that—why can you make this claim?
3. Finally, tell me how well you think it works in this case in light of your social issue.
8. Rhetorical Context: Subject- and purpose-related problems.
(From chapter 9)
For this portion, consider subject- and purpose-related problems. These can be broken down further into four categories:
Complexity: Subject seems too complicated for the audience. It may be too remote from the audience’s experience, or required some special expertise to understand, or are otherwise bound up in a difficult issue.
Cultural history: Past experiences of the audience affect their willingness to accept an argument. Audiences may be bored with a subject, closed due to taboos, conditioned by a loaded subject, or hold a proposal conflicts with cultural values.
Cost: What would it cost for an audience to participate in the rhetor’s desired course of action? What would it cost in terms of time, energy, status, comfort, inconvenience, or ridicule?
Control: Can the audience be made to believe they can make a difference? What can they do to control the outcome?
So for this portion…
A) What are the subject- and purpose-related problems that need to be overcome? Identify one of the four problems for your artifact. B) Also, tell me how the rhetor overcomes (or tries to overcome) this problem.
Remember that this should be structured in the Claim + Proof + Analysis structure.
4. Describe what problem the artifact had to overcome. Then,
5. Give me proof of that—why can you make this claim?
6. Finally, tell me how well you think it works in this case in light of your social issue.
9. Rhetorical Context: Rhetor-related problems (from chapter 10)
For this portion, we want you to consider rhetor-related opportunities and challenges. A rhetor’s ethos is affected by four factors.
Authoritativeness: The rhetor is perceived as informed, expert, qualified, intelligent, and reliable.
Trustworthiness: The rhetor is perceived as honest, friendly, pleasant, and more concerned with the good of the community than with personal goals.
Dynamism: The rhetor is perceived as empathic, assertive, forceful, bold, active, and energetic.
Identification: The rhetoric is perceived as being part of the audience’s coalition—the rhetor is perceived as being “one of us.”
So for this portion…
Select one of the four factors for your artifact. Explain how the rhetors behind your artifact succeed or fail in shaping their ethos in terms of these factors. Then, give us proof—what evidence supports your claim? Finally, tell us how effective this factor(s) is in terms of your social issue.
Section 3: Special Constraints
There are four special constraints. For this essay, complete THREE of the four. Write three separate paragraphs for the three special constraints you choose; each paragraph should follow the critical equation.
OPTION 1 (Chapter 11) Standards of Assessment.
Aft There are four standards of Assessment.
• Aesthetics: How beautiful or well-crafted is the artifact?
• Truth: How honest, fair, and forthright is it? Is it accurate? Does it give the complete picture or just present its point of view?
• Ethics: If the artifact succeeds in the way it wants, how good would that be? Are the goals of this artifact moral and just?
• Effects: How effective is this artifact? How well does it work?
So for this portion…
Evaluate your artifact by one of the four standards. Remember that this should be structured in the Claim + Proof + Analysis structure. So: 1) make a claim about the artifact—for example, that it is aesthetically beautiful. Then 2) offer proof of that—why can you make this claim? 3) How well does this artifact achieve this standard, especially in terms of your social issue?
OPTION 2 (Chapter 12) Visual rhetoric. (Only select this option if your artifact is “visual”—that is, does not rely on words or sound alone.) How does the artifact use visuals to support its intent? How well does it accomplish its purpose through its visuals?
For this option, the directions are a bit more open. Here are some ideas of things to discuss. Do not feel you need to address all (or even any) of them.
• What do you see in the artifact that uses shapes and spaces to sell the product? How is the camera framed? Consider the use of shapes like square/triangle/circle. Square = honesty, dullness. Triangle = conflict, action. Circle = warmth, security. Lots of white space = luxury/independence.
• What in the artifact do you see that uses balance and direction? Symmetrical balance tends to convey a comforting/traditional/formal tone. Asymmetrical = informal/dissonance. Consider rapid movements of the camera and slow, deliberate movements as well.
• What do you see in the artifact that uses color and lighting to sell the product? —bright tends to be positive; dark is negative. Not using shadows will diminish intensity.
• How does the artifact use of figure and background help sell the product? Think about things like tone, emphasis on the product, etc. What does a zoom to the face suggest? Or a far-off shot?. Consider the relationship between subject and background. Movement of the camera can suggest intimacy or excitement.
So for this portion…
Evaluate the artifact by its use of visual rhetoric. 1) Make a claim about the visual rhetoric used within the artifact. Then 2) give me proof of that—why can you make this claim? 3) How well does this artifact accomplish what it is trying to achieve with this visual rhetoric?
OPTION 3 (Chapter 13) Medium of transmission. How does the type of medium that the artifact is constructed in affect its effectiveness? Evaluate how it takes advantage of its medium’s strengths as well as how it attempts to overcome its medium’s weaknesses.
Newspaper/Print:
Advantages: Linear, permanent, in-depth
Disadvantages: dated, require literacy, cost the consumer directly, takes time to digest
Radio:
Advantages: intimate; reaches segmented audience
Disadvantages: non-visual
Television:
Advantages: captures the largest audience, quickly; uniquely satisfying
Disadvantages: lacks depth and perspective; sensationalistic; not childproof
Internet:
Advantages: cooperative possibilities; empowers users/audience
Disadvantages: no official gatekeeper; prone to anarchy and incivility
So for this portion…
Examine how the medium influences the message. So, 1) make a claim about how the medium influences the message. Then 2) give me proof of that—why can you make this claim? 3) Finally, explain how well this medium supports (or doesn’t) the rhetor’s motives.
OPTION 4: Understanding occasion (From chapter 14) Which of Aristotle’s three genres of speeches (epideictic, forensic, deliberative) would this artifact best fit? (Remember that it can also be a hybrid of genres, or a subversion of a genre.) How well does it use this genre to fulfill its purpose?
Epideictic is ceremonial/demonstrative speech. A eulogy would be an epideictic speech.
Goal: Praise or blame
Time orientation: Present
Issue: Questions of value (what is worthy? What is a higher value?)
Audience: Observers
Examples: Maid of honor speech//eulogy//state of the union
Forensic. One of three principal kinds of classical public speech. Forensic is judicial/legal speeches. The purpose of forensic speech was originally for defending or accusing a person. Today, debate is often called forensics, picking up on the notion of one team speak for (defending a position) and one team speaking against (accusing of flawed reasoning).
Goal: Justice/injustice
Time orientation: Past
Issue: Questions of fact
Audience: Jurors
Example: Courtroom//Debate
Deliberative. One of three principal kinds of classical public speech. Deliberative is political/legislative speech. The primary concern of deliberative speech is to move people toward future action (laws/policies that would affect the future of society). Deliberative rhetoric is argumentation for or against future action.
Goal: Practical or impractical
Time orientation: Future
Issue: Questions of policy (what should we do)
Audience: Voters
Examples: Election debates; congressional speeches; filibusters
Also remember that there can be a “genre violation” in which the expectations are subverted or a hybrid where one or more qualities of the genres are shared. You may also wished to discuss the apologia, or a speech which intends to repair one’s image, self-defense, or crisis management.
So for this portion…
Evaluate your artifact with the contexts of one of the genres (or as a genre violation/hybrid). Remember that this should be structured in the Claim + Proof + Analysis structure. So, you would 1) make a claim about the artifact—for example, it fits within the deliberative genre. Then 2) give me proof of that—why can you make this claim? 3) How well does this artifact’s use of this genre (or subversion/hybridization of it) make it effective in terms of your social issue?
—
Rhetorical Analysis Essay: The Battle on Gun Control
In the United States, the majority of the American people believe in gun ownership rights. A quote by one of the infamous men in history, Thomas Jefferson, stated “When the Government fears its people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny” (Jefferson). This quote has been valid since the historical times to the current society considering there is still the notion of being an armed populace means that people are not pushed around. That is how a free country is achieved. The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights has stamped this freedom for its citizens. The people can only hold true power if they can remove it in case it chooses to be more powerful. Without the guns, then the government’s army will stand in the middle of its fight to ultimate freedom.
Notably, this modern society has divergent views on gun ownership rights. The opposite views to the legalization or ownership rights are an imposing of bans. While the proponent of owning a gun will state the gun is for individual protection,the opponent states that the mass shootings experienced in the country are increasing sharply; the guns need to be banned for their reduction (Frum). From an individual point of view, guns need to be considered as not evil since they do not do the shooting but the people (fox News). To propagate the validity of gun ownership rights, the Atlantic article by David French , “What Critics Don’t Understand About Gun Culture”, the sometimes shockingly incompetent government gives him more reason to own a gun for the speaker’s family security. Gun ownership rights can be better understood through a comprehensive descriptive analysis, a rhetorical study, and examination of the special constraints on the rhetorical artifacts, “What Critics Don’t Understand About Gun Culture” by David French, 7 facts about guns in the U.S. by John Gramlich and Katherine Schaeffer and “Is gun control really about people control?” By James I. Ausman and Miguel A. Faria
Descriptive Analysis
“What Critics Don’t Understand About Gun Culture” by David French.
The rhetorical artifact is an explanation of a father who came to realize the importance of owning a gun. To him, the gun was going to stand in the gap between his family’s security and the security threat. According to the author, many Americans who especially want the gun rights revoked do not understand “gun culture” and specifically the process one undergoes before becoming an owner to a concealed carrier and how it changes one’s life. For a number of years, his family has had to face several threats including an attempted attack on her wife and children when he was miles away from the family. If the wife did not cleverly think of using the gun, then a possibility of a different worse case would now bev the discussion (French) The experiences that the writer -father- shares with an emotional tone will capture the emotions of any reader because anyone with a conscience would want to ensure the security of their loved ones.
Primarily, French’s artifact deploys a psychological element to explain his perspective but also contains several factual elements in it. When the writer speaks of his first experience walking into a gun store which was his first encounter with shooting. At the store, one is guided by an individual who is ready to listen and teach one of the basics to marksmanship (French). While it is a positive experience, one’s thought process begins to change, especially thinking of how the gun makes one feel safe in the face of any danger. One gets ingrained with the goodness of this feeling of having a form of “self defense” that will want to share the feeling to families and close ones (French). Many of these listeners go to the gun stores and start their experience with gun culture. In terms of factual elements, the author states that these guns will protect before the police rush to help, the overwhelming background checks also help in ensuring the guins do not fall on the wrong hands.
The organizational pattern in this artifact is mainly logical and sequential. The author has a problem of insecurity for himself and his family. He also understands that this challenge is one faced by his colleagues, friends and families (French). To this effect, he chose to give them the solution of owning a gun which has proven to be effective for himself. He also gives a story of himself and family and how he came to become a gun owner. These two patterns are effective because most readers do understand that challenges such as insecurity will have one choosing a solution for themselves. As the author quoted Miller, “Where you stand is based on where you sit” to illustrate how one’s environment and experiences define one’s opinions, the consciousness of security threats made him seek a gun, be an owner of one and propagate for the ownership rights”.
“Is gun control really about people control?” By James I. Ausman and Miguel A. Faria
This rhetorical fact has incorporated the altering perception as its rhetorical purpose. The article illustrates how the debate and push for gun control laws has become politicized and emotionally based and concerns are raised on what is the real motive behind this emphasis. The authors indicate that the motive for the increased emphasis on these laws is to control the people (Ausman and Faria). A typical government that cares for its citizens willwantbits citizens owning guns and not the opposite. Therefore, the audience read in between the lines and try to grasp the perception of the proponents of gun control. There is enough evidence that they want to control the people.
The persona in this artifact is an informant who chooses to communicate the different perspectives portrayed in the article to understand this perspective. One of the pieces he brings forth is on the weapons” that came in handy for citizens such as Brian Rigsby and his friend Tom Styer who had been attacked while camping (Ausman an Faria). The informant also analyzes the inaccurate censorship and press reporting tha media platforms are constantly pushing forwards. The question in the media is, considering that these platforms are supposed to be very independent, why are they slow to talk about gun ownership? It is questions like these that the persona says point out a hidden agenda for the push towards gun control laws.
The rhetorical artifact has incorporated statistics and factual dimension in chronologically explaining its perspective. The shooting of 17 students that occurred at Parkland, Florida in 2018 is said to have happened with the full knowledge of the FBI and local law enforcement agencies (Ausman and Faria). A number of studies have also proven to show guns do prevent crimes such as Dr. Edgar’s study has illustrated that the use of defensive firearms annually reaches approximately 2.5 million annually. For the United States, an estimated 25 to 75 lives are saved when a gun is used (Ausman and Faria). Again, the author questions why the media censors this information from the public. There is clearly a hidden agenda because disarming citizens does not in any way prevent violent behavior. It actually wants to control these people because many of the leaders in higher positions believe in being smarter than the normal citizen which has been clearly illustrated by the rhetoric artifact.
7 facts about guns in the U.S. by John Gramlich and Katherine Schaeffer
This rhetoric artifact initiates action to understanding the perspectives of gun ownership rights in the American society. Through an analysis of events and views from different American citizens especially those who own guns, many indicated that the guns offered a personal sense of freedom. This was effective considering the different statistics he presented such as the distinct reasons people identified, highlighting the division of the citizens in terms of guns and the severity of the shooting issues does ignite the readers to understand the nature of gun ownership (Gramlich and Schaeffer).
The tone in this artifact is mainly candid as the author seeks to make one understand the situation. The statistics conveed portrayed a clearer picture of the situation on the ground such as female gun owners having a sole reason for owning a gun while many males having more than one reason (Gramlich and Schaeffer). The statistics were effective for one to comprehend the importance attached to guns by Americans especially for the one who has not interacted with the situation. As mentioned earlier, statistics was the main evidence provided which makes up the vases used to bring forth the perspective which was a valid method.
The artifact has a topical organizational pattern specifically the perspectives given based on American user experiences that informed their views towards gun ownership and gun control. The author concludes that there have been changes in terms of the gun related violence specifically reduced rates compared to the 90s era (Gramlich and Schaeffer).. The pattern was useful as the development it brought to the artifact ensured further understanding for the reader with limited information.
Rhetorical Context
French’s artifact is focss on a target audience specifically those who are against those who choose to go against the gun owners. He indicates that the reason why many are against them is because they have not interacted with the gun culture. It is this interaction that will achieve a form of understanding for these individuals. The way it was presented, this artifact would make the audience understand the perspective of this father. The rhetoric is hence perceived as trustworthy for sharing his personal experiences. Ethos are essential and have been effective for its target audience because then they cease to be very judgmental towards these individuals.
James and Faria’s artifact was focussed on capturing the attention of agents of change. In this case, it is the leaders behind the fight against gun ownership rights so that they look at the many cases in which these guns have actually come to save lives. The authors question why they are so against gun ownership and could be pointing out a possibility to want to control the people. Therefore, the artifact did try to illustrate that the desire to control the people has been identified but did not show any form of action that they would do. This would highly make the audience not do anything as they will see like it would not do much impact.
The last rhetoric artifact by Gramlich and Schaeffer was targeted for an ideal audience that is seeking to be informed on the gun issue. The approach taken was effective especially using numbers for the different variables explained. However, I do not believe that this audience will be in a position to make a lot of change since the information provided is general.
Special Constraints
French’s artifact gives an account of his persona;l experience to propagate gun ownership rights. While there is no way to ascertain the truth behind the experiences, this is a common occurrence for many. Many individuals are always at a threat of insecurity and having a gun could actually help them during such times. To this effect, this illustration is understandable and relatable for the audience to understand the perspective. James and Faria’a artifact is to be evaluated on the truth basis. Each case that the authors presented are events that actually happened and the readers would associate with them. However, in terms of impact, I do not believe that the impact is enough for them to make a change. The final artifact by Gramlich and Schaeffer has an authoritative rhetoric that is informed on the issue. The artifact being focussed on an audience seeking awareness will be effective but there is still more to learn for them to choose a side.
Conclusion
It is important that the association of guns with evil especially for private citizens needs to be stopped. The guns are primarily for protection for the free citizen living in a free country. There are many reasons as to why it should not be banned. There is need to look into the many benefits accrued from the guns. One thing to realize is that the security aspect that is provided by these guns is far much better than what the police minutes away could provide in the times of danger.
Works Cited
Ausman, James I., and Miguel A. Faria. “Is gun control really about people control?.” Surgical neurology international 10 (2019).
Filipovic, Jill. “Fewer Guns Mean Fewer Killings, and We All Know It.” CNN, 1 June 2019, edition.cnn.com/2019/06/01/opinions/virginia-beach-mass-shooting-gun-control-filipovic/index.html.
Fox News. “Why Guns Are Good.” Fox News, 12 Nov. 2014, www.foxnews.com/opinion/why-guns-are-good.
French, David. “Why I Carry a Gun.” The Atlantic, 27 Feb. 2018, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/gun-culture/554351/.
Frum, David. “Do Guns Make Us Safer?” CNN, 30 July 2012, edition.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/index.html.
Gramlich, John, and Katherine Schaeffer. “7 Facts About Guns in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, 22 Oct. 2019, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/22/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/.
Jefferson, Thomas. “When the Government Fears the People, There is Liberty… (Spurious Quotation).” Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/when-government-fears-people-there-liberty-spurious-quotation.
