Robert Dow Analysis

In recognition of the outrageous number of mass shootings that have taken place in the past ten years, Robert Dow writes his take on how to prevent these shootings in an essay titled, “We Stop the Next Aurora Not with Gun Control but with Better Mental Health Treatment.” He discusses how to prevent future mass shootings, the other arguments presented with this topic, and how capital punishment is useless in these cases. Dow takes a unique approach on this subject of mass shootings and he successfully argues his point by using concrete examples, by using simple and easy to understand diction, and by adequately explaining the other sides of the argument. Dow’s main point in his essay is that mass shootings can be prevented with better treatment …show more content…
He explains, “gun-control advocates say if we had more rigorous laws, Columbine and Virginia Tech, and now Aurora, would not have happened. The NRA says if more people at the scene of the tragedy had been packing heat, they could have taken the shooter down. Both arguments are equally absurd” (322). In this passage, Dow explains both sides of the opposing arguments. He acknowledges that there are opposing opinions about mass shootings and how to stop them, and then he goes on to explain why he believes they are unfounded. He explains that if people had been carrying guns, they wouldn’t have been able to kill James Holmes, the shooter at Aurora, because he was wearing full body armor. Instead, those who were carrying guns could have hurt other innocents in the process of trying to take down Homes (Dow 322). He uses this example to prove that neither side of the argument would have been correct in this case. Instead, if Holmes had been treated for his mental illness, the whole situation could have been avoided entirely. Although Dow thinks gun control is pointless in preventing mass shootings, he does give credit to stricter gun laws for helping with a lot of things. He says that “it will keep kids from killing themselves with their dads’ unsecured guns. It will make it harder for drug dealers to kill each other, and it will save lives in ordinary robberies. It might even prevent wildfires in the West” (323). This passage shows that Dow is not biased against gun control. He does believe that gun control can be a positive thing, but it will not help with preventing mass shootings. “It will not stop the mentally ill from reaping carnage because the proximate cause of their carnage is disease, not hardware” (Dow 323). Dow is able to successfully argue his point because he acknowledged the