The writing piece of Nicholas Kristof on gun laws provides an invaluable argumentation for implementing proper legislative regulations alongside technological improvements by making the issues analogous to cars and their regulation. However, Dennis Baron’s argumentative writing focuses on banning the English language in the United States by promoting the radical opposite of making the given language an official one. Although both writings provide valid points, the former one is evidently more effective in comparison to the latter.
The two essays differ in both the topic being discussed and approach for argumentation, where Nicholas Kristof argues with solid reasoning through the use of facts and Dennis Baron merely opposes by utilizing conventional knowledge. Nicholas Kristof’s writing is significantly more effective because it offers a clear comparison of guns to cars, where the arguments are backed by historical facts. However, Dennis Baron seems to simply oppose the legislation of making English an official language by basing the arguments on the notion of forbidden fruit being more appealing. Both sources use evidence, but Nicholas Kristof’s writing is vastly more superior since the evidence is factual historically, and the other author uses anecdotal evidence. Kristoff writes: “A century ago, we reacted to deaths and injuries from unregulated vehicles by imposing sensible safety measures that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives a year” (Kristof, 2014, para. 18). It works because cars are an ideal analogy for guns, and the gun regulation addresses the safety measures in regards to guns since they are deadly to users.
In conclusion, Nicholas Kristof’s writing and arguments are more effective than Dennis Baron’s because the former author uses historical facts, logical reasoning, and clear analogies to claim that guns require some form of regulation.
Reference
Kristof, N. (2014). Our blind spot about guns. The New York Times.