Through research and analysis, it has come to my attention when reading an article from the American Journal of Public Health called "The Relationship between Gun Ownership and Stranger and Non-stranger Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981-2010," that gun ownership should be restricted. The argument of this article is about whether or not the availability of firearms should be allowed in a household or if it should be restricted. Many debated that gun ownership should be restricted for everyone's safety, but many others also debated that it should not be restricted because it would cause more harm to our society. In that case, firearms cause more than 31,000 deaths annually in the United States as mentioned by Michael Siegel. In both, the American Journal of Public Health and the American Psychological Association articles, the authors mention about the tragic event that happened at the Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012, where twenty children and seven adults were shot and killed. Since then, several states have enacted or debated legislation to restrict the availability of firearms. Lott has stated for example, if all states in the U.S were to restrict gun ownership, he suggested that by reducing the number of guns held by law-abiding citizens might increase homicides because "it would be easier for criminals to prey on the weakest citizens, who would find it more difficult to defend themselves." So once again, the argument of this issue is understanding whether or not, increased gun ownership increases or decreases homicides.
In this article, both authors approach Aristotle's modes of persuasion: ethos, logos, and pathos. They approach ethos by showing us that they are credible and that we believe and agree upon their statements and arguments. They approach logos by explaining to us what the arguments are this issue and also gives examples, as well as statistics.