Commentary on controversial issues

I chose to cover ‘gun laws in America’ as my controversial issue; this is mainly because the issue has recently been put into the media’s spotlight. This month 13 people were shot dead in the ‘Oregon college shootings’.  I feel very strongly about the issue myself, so felt that I was able to express my own thoughts and feeling through the persona and idiolect of each character. Although I tried to keep both sides of the issue as equal as possible, so that I could fully make my point.  I felt that the pro-gun laws were particularly very hard to sustain any valid points, because I had such a strong opinion. The purpose of each of these blogs was to show very different viewpoints on gun laws, so that there was a great disagreement between the two bloggers. The register of each blog is very different but again quite deliberate, to exaggerate the persona of Jonathon and Richard. Due to the severity and the fact that the issue has arisen so abruptly and quickly, the expectation of the reader is that there will be a strong view point against gun-laws. However in this case there needs to be a variation in outlook.

The first character ‘50 year old Jonathon Smith from Houston’ was used to convey the ‘benefits’ of gun laws in America. I felt that I should portray Jonathon Smith as a ‘crazy’ character, who didn’t really have enough real statistics or knowledge to fully comment on the situation unlike my second character who does. In the opening line Jonathon describes the gun man as a “maniac”, here he is referring to someone who has mental health issues. Having done my own researcher, it was very easy to manipulate Jonathon as a character and through him expose the typical mind set of an American who opposes the future extinction of guns. I made sure that any points that this character made, were able to be fully explained and rectified using the other, while still making sure He was well represented and there was reasonable opposition to create more debate and discussion. Jonathon uses a lot of rhetorical questions, this is deliberately done, and he uses them so often it’s as if he doesn’t know the question himself. Jonathon’s blog was very ephemeral in contrast with Richards.

For my second character Richard Barker, trying to make sure that he tried to answer each question as fully and in as much detail as possible. He uses a lot of technical terminology, rather than “maniac”, which is a very broad and insensitive term to be for a mental health sufferer. Especially in this day and age, where the subject is talked about more and more, as we constantly learn new facts. I feel the way in which he addressed each statement that Jonathon’s questions, makes the audience have respect for him. The questions I made him focus on, simply answered the questions that Jonathon wrote in his blog, almost like a response in a conversation. For example; has anyone ever thought to ask about the shooters back ground? Mental illnesses? What if there was a reason as to why these crimes were being committed? I used statistics from a clip from BBC news and an article from Propulica by Lois Beckett, to answer the open ended questions with harsh facts. Jonathon doesn’t explore the issue as much as Richard, Richard is more engaging with the way he writes his blog. This may be because we can feel more sympathetic to him, as he is covering the anti-gun law that would prevent hundreds from dying each year. Although this is a controversial issue, I myself fail to see how there can be any opposition to the idea of a weaponry free USA. This is partly why I felt it so difficult to produce equal arguments. The background knowledge that I provided alongside each character I felt helped to convey each side of the issue, Richard is a psychology graduate from oxford whereas Jonathon appears to have any distinguishing qualifications that would give him any better view on gun laws than Richard.