Analyzing Congressman Brian Mast’s New York Times Op-Ed
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180227080425-brian-mast-super-tease.jpg)
On February 23rd, 2018, Republican Congressman from Florida’s 18th congressional district Brian Mast explains his position on the issue of gun control through a New York Times Opinion Editorial titled “I’m a Republican. I Appreciate Assault Weapons. And I support a Ban”. Mast begins his article by citing his military experience with these weapons, the AR-15 in particular, as why he believes that these weapons are dangerous (Mast). Mast then mentions how gun violence has impacted the community he represents and how the AR-15 has made the community less safe (Mast). Finally, Mast closes the article out by listing numerous gun control measures that he supports (Mast). Mast’s main points of the article are his personal experience, his knowledge of the AR-15, and how he has seen the use of the AR-15 negatively impact his community through gun violence.
Mast uses the rhetorical appeals ethos, pathos, and logos to advocate for an assault weapons ban being implemented at the federal level. Overall, I believe that the congressman did an excellent job using ethos, pathos, and logos to present his argument in favor of the ban. His message also resonated with voters, as he won his reelection in 2018 despite his party losing 41 seats in the United States House of Representatives. The one criticism I have for Congressman Mast’s article was the lack of concrete statistics that cite how an assault weapons ban would decrease gun violence, nevertheless I personally found the uses of ethos, pathos, and logos to make his point very convincing.
First Mast uses Ethos to establish his credibility on the issue of guns. He begins the article by saying:
“The most important and unregrettable time of my life was the 12 years I spent in the Army. I became a bomb technician because I wanted to save lives. I nearly gave my own life for that — I lost both my legs and a finger when a roadside bomb detonated beneath me — and have known more heroes than I can count who died defending others” (Mast). By beginning his Op-Ed this way, Congressman Mast tells the reader about his experience with weapons as a member of the Army for 12 years, Mast makes the reader trust what he has to say. The reader knows that because Mast sacrificed his legs and a finger serving his country, that he personally knows how dangerous military-style weapons are, therefore his stance on an Assault Weapons ban has validity before he even makes his case. Mast then explains his experience using assault rifles and how it has shaped his stance on an assault weapons ban.
“I have fired tens of thousands of rounds through that rifle, many in combat. We used it because it was the most lethal — the best for killing our enemies. And I know that my community, our schools and public gathering places are not made safer by any person having access to the best killing tool the Army could put in my hands.” (Mast). This quote helps establish congressman Mast’s credibility because he has actually used the weapons that are debating being banned. He comes from the point of view as someone who has seen the destruction that these weapons caused in the military, and the destruction that they are doing to the communities he is representing. Because he actually has seen the effect these weapons had in both instances, he becomes a more credible casemaker for t the new proposed legislation.
Brian Mast then continued to use ethos to make his argument, this time in an attempt to convince those who disagree with his stance. “No firearm is evil. Guns are tools that fulfill the intent of their users, good or bad. But we’ve seen that the rifle of choice for many mass shooters is the AR-15” (Mast). The opening sentence explaining that the gun itself isn’t evil echoes the common pathos-based sentiment of those who oppose gun control. By echoing these sentiments before transitioning to a logos-based argument, Mast makes his case seem stronger to those on both sides of the gun control debate.
The next rhetorical tactic that Brian Mast uses in his Op-Ed is Pathos, or emotional appeal. “I cannot support the primary weapon I used to defend our people being used to kill children I swore to defend” (Mast). This directly appeals to the reader’s empathy by portraying Mast as a hero for defending the people while making sure that they are safe by being against the AR-15 when it kills citizens.
The Congressman portrays this as a safety issue where people’s lives are at risk without change. This actually is a common tactic used by people who support gun control, however those people tend to be more liberal. This makes the fact that a Republican war veteran is making a passionate, pathos-centered argument is a massive political statement and gives a new wave of hope for those who view the issue the same way as Mr. Mast.
Finally, the congressman returns to using logos to make his case.
“I am confident I can eliminate an active shooter who is attacking with a pistol because the attacker would have to be close to me. But the defense my concealed 9-millimeter affords me is largely gone if the attacker is firing from beyond 40 yards, as he could easily do with the AR-15” (Mast). In my opinion, this is the strongest argument made in this article in favor of the ban. Mast specifically cites the difference between an attacker with a common handgun and an assault rifle, specifically an AR-15, and how shooting distance makes the AR-15 not only makes a situation more dangerous but takes away the defense a “good guy with a gun” could use. This quote also debunks a common phrase coined by opponents that “a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun.”
The Op-Ed ends with Congressman Mast listing the gun control policies that he supports. He also wanted accountability for those who were responsible for allowing Nikolas Cruz, the man who killed 17 students in the Parkland School Shooting to become a threat. One thing I should note is that Mast actually represents the district directly north of where the Parkland Shooting occurred, so that could have influenced Mast’s stance on gun reform.
Overall, I believe that Mast used Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in an extremely effective manner. I believe that since the party his party’s stance on gun control, especially on an assault weapons tends to be more pro-gun than pro-gun control, I believe that this article was appropriate because it shows that the issue of gun reform is not split alongside party lines. Plus this article, in my opinion, does a great job at reaching out to the opposing side to present his argument. I think in terms of effectiveness, it was A’s effective as an op-ed of a congressman bucking party lines and calling for other members of his party to join him could be.
Works Cited:
Mast, Brian. “I’m Republican. I Appreciate Assault Weapons. And I Support a Ban.” The New York Times. 23 February 2018. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/opinion/brian-mast-assault-weapons-ban.amp.htm
