Kayla Condrey Condrey1

10/21/2017
English 111-402

How Molly Ivins Gets the Point Across

Molly Ivins article “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns” Is about Ivins’s opinion on safety

issues with guns. This is evident in her statement “permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is

destroying the security of this free state.” This evaluation of this selection will compare and contrast the

views of the writer and how they relate to logos, pathos and ethos.

Ivins use of logos in her article was her title “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns.” She

used it as a catch phrase to get the reader’s attention from the beginning. The intended meaning was to

suggest there are other ways of protection other than guns. She attempts to persuade individuals to use

safer methods of protection.

This article does use loaded words, but does not have very many facts to back up Ivin’s opinions.

An example of a loaded term that is very negative is "There is more hooey spread about the Second

Amendment." A good example of not having actual facts to back up what she is saying Is “A general

substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness.” This isn’t a proven fact or even relevant

to her argument, however this is how she starts her article. She goes on to talk about the second

amendment but leaves out the parts that do not support her argument. The fragment of the second

amendment she addresses is “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the

right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The second part she left out discusses

how only people in the military should have guns and you should have to go through extensive training.

Again she does not show any statistics on gun safety but is using fragmented parts for facts to support

her opinion. When stating “This is no longer a frontier nation in which people hunt their own food. It is

a crowded, overwhelmingly urban country in which letting people have access to guns is a continuing
Kayla Condrey Condrey2
10/21/2017
English 111-402

disaster.” She just assumes that there aren’t places that need guns to survive. This appears to be a very

narrow-minded view.

Ivins’s use Pathos is evidence in how she relates her article to her libertarian values. She

identifies herself as a libertarian but her opinions or beliefs do adhere to the libertarian views. Her

beliefs on guns are more liberal than libertarian. Libertarian’s closely follows the constitution and

believe in little to no governmental control. Her emotion comes through with her reference to

“Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are

not part of a well-regulated militia” one can assume that she is referencing the mass shootings that have

taken place. Another example is her statement “Anyone who has ever worked in a cop shop knows how

many family arguments end in murder because there was a gun in the house.” She is basing her opinion

on emotional events that she has heard instead of taking in to count the whole picture.

This article does not use ethos. Ivins provided no facts in her article to support her view but

strictly voiced her opinion. The only thing that came close to being credible in this article was her

quoting the second amendment, but she only used a section out of context. In the article she identifies

herself as a libertarian but her views on this matter align more with Liberals. Ivins’s points are invalid

and unfounded. This statement “A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical

fitness” will either make you laugh or roll your eyes, which discredits the entire piece from the opening

sentence.
Kayla Condrey Condrey3
10/21/2017
English 111-402

Work Cited

• Ivins, Molly. Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns., clev.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-

1231526-dt-content-rid-3285869_1/courses/42160/MollyIvins_GetaKnife.html.