In the op-ed “Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?”, Nicholas Kristof argues in favor of tighter gun control in response to the school shooting in Connecticut. The article is intended to raise awareness on all who feel relevant about the issue of gun control. There are three steps to his argument in general. Firstly, the author states the fact that lack of proper gun-control is causing around 30,000 deaths in the US every year. Thus, the situation is worth immediate attention. Secondly, the author argues that the gun control policies are far from adequate to prevent the tragedies from happening again. Finally, the author proposes solutions by giving examples of a few other countries. The solutions involve more background checks and a stricter process in approving gun ownerships. Failing to target the core of the problem and answer the question proposed by himself, the author is largely ineffective in making a point.
Although the author has proposed a few important questions in the issue of gun control, he has not managed to either explain or answer most of them. For example, the title of the article reads “Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?” (Kristof, 2012). However, there is little justification of the use of the word “courage”. Instead, the author talks about the “motivations” to act in the entire article. The readers may wonder why does courage appears in the title and what it is referring to, but they are not likely to find the answer from the text. The author initiates his argument by asking another question: “Why can’t we regulate guns as seriously as we do cars?” (Kristof, 2012). This is a “can” question indicating the intention of the author to inquire the capability of the country in coming up with tighter gun controls. Indeed, there have been voices in tighter gun controls, and even banning the guns in the US for years, but these voices are hardly reflected in any policies. If it was the unanimous idea for all the Americans to reduce the shooting incidences by tighter gun control, the country would have solved the problem for years, like what Australia did in 1996 (Kristof, 2012), which has been over a decade. The reasons behind are obviously worth exploring. However, although the author asks such an important question at the very beginning, there is no direct discussion of it afterwards. Instead, the author goes back to arguing why the US “should” act. Failing to address the real problems proposed by himself, the author may leave the readers confused about the true focus of the article.

The author fails to prove the effectiveness of the solutions proposed, which should be the most important part of the article that makes all arguments truly relevant. As mentioned above, the core of the problem is within the country, and a solution is only valid when it is based on the analysis of the problems in the country. Having largely overlooked this fact, the author seeks successful example from abroad, which are Australia and Canada (Kristof, 2012). However, these two countries are hardly adequate in justifying the effectiveness of tighter gun control. Firstly, the populations of both Australia and Canada are not even one tenth of the population of the US. Secondly, as a country of immigration, the problem in the US is much more complex. Lastly, the example of Australia is from 1996, with a completely different social and political environment. Therefore, the “success models” of the two countries are not likely to be applied in the US with the same outcome. It is also questionable that the author proposes only part of the solutions without a comprehensive coverage. In addition to tighter control, there is another obviously more effective solution, which is a ban on firearm ownership. However, the author has failed to even mention it. The limitation and even prohibition of gun ownership, is adopted by most of the countries in the world, including both industrialized and developing countries. It is thus difficult for the readers to understand why the authors settles for the solution that reduces the number of deaths from 30,000 to 10,000 (Kristof, 2012), when there are better alternatives that would effectively reduce the number further.

The author seems not to understand the seriousness of the issue, and has adopted a distant, casual writing style that doesn’t appeal for the emotional response of the readers. If there was a list of the easiest topic of an op-ed in the US, pro-gun control is in it, since it is a matter of life and death and the country has suffered great losses due to uncontrolled firearms. Instead of making deep reflections on why the problem persists after so many years, the author compares owning a gun to having a car or pet, trying to make a point about how easy it is to own a gun in the US. However, the nature of these things is completely different from guns. For example, the author claims that safety standards should be provided for buying and owning guns just like for a car, where seat belts, air bags, child seats and other safety standards are provided. However, a gun and a car is intrinsically different. It is the primary function of a car to transport, while the danger is only a side effect of it. In the case of a gun, it hurts and kills no matter what the incentives are. Therefore, it is completely irresponsible of the author to claim that the guns should be treat in “the same serious way (Kristof, 2012)” as cars, as the former is of an entirely different level of seriousness. Overall, there is little emotional expressions throughout the article, as the public tend to on the matter, which makes the article ineffective in delivering the intended message.

In conclusion, the author has asked the right questions at the beginning of the article, but fails to answer or even to understand the questions. It is almost ridiculous that anyone should settle for “10,000 deaths instead of 30,000”, simply because it is a smaller number. Although the author claims that the article addresses the “fundamentals” of the issue, he has failed to do so without a logical analysis of the situation, consideration of a complete set of alternatives, and the sensitiv