Rhetorical Analysis “The Boston Terror Will Benefit the NRA, Hurt Control,” was an article that I found on the internet. It was published April 19th, 2013. I located it on the Businessweek website, under the politics and policy section. The article discusses how the Boston Bombing that occurred on April 15th, 2013, will benefit the National Rifle Association as well as gun supporters. It also goes into detail how the National Rifle Association uses tragic events such as 9/11 to support their campaign. The article ends with the statement, “The gun debate has been tilting toward the pro-gun side for more than a dozen years. The Boston Marathon bombings will continue that trend.” In summary the writer expresses why he believes that Boston Bombing benefits that National Rifle Association and all pro-gun supporters. The article was written by a man named Paul M. Barrett. Mr. Barrett is an assistant managing editor and a senior writer at Bloomberg Businessweek. In addition to that he is an author of the book, “Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun.” He also is a graduate from Harvard Law School and is an adjunct professor at York University Law School. Paul M. Barrett’s use of logos in this argument were completely absent from the article. There was no concrete evidence that suggested that the bombing that took place in Boston benefits the National Rifle Association. The reasoning that Barrett used was poor and was expressed by his opinion on the matter instead of supporting facts. In one part of the article Barrett states, “The NRA masterfully equates any gun control with hostility to all firearm ownership and a liberal impulse to deny law-abiding citizens their right to protect themselves in
extreme circumstances.” His statement here provides the reader with no facts, just an opinion of his own. Barrett’s use of ethos in this article, were displayed one time. He attempts to establish credibility by quoting a pro-gun activist, who supported the National Rifle Association’s…