The Talk of the Town

This post is my response to the two essays by Adam Gopnik and Susan Sontag in their "The Talk of the Town" section of The New Yorker. First up, Mr. Gopnik's essay.

In Adam Gopnik's essay, the sleek, well-written format of the writing really keeps one's attention. The introduction talks about the ringing cell phones of the victims of the shooting at Virginia Tech in 2007 that claimed 32 students' lives. He really makes us grieve with the victim's parents by using words like "heartrending" and "unbearable" to make the feelings seem all too real. He then throws another element into the mix: irony. He goes on to say how right after a shooting is not the right time to question gun control, and how after terrorist attacks (assuming he meant 9/11) is not the right time to question national security. Shouldn't that be the time to question these things? If not, then when is? When another incident happens and more people suffer? It's this irony and sarcasm that really keeps the reader's attention as he moves on to make his point on how gun control would eliminate, or at least lessen, shootings such as the one at Virginia Tech.  He later goes on to say that gun vendors in the US sell guns to "madmen". Well, gun vendors aren't aware that they are "madmen." They just sell them a gun with no knowledge of what his or her plans are to do with it, and although it seems right to prosecute the gun vendor as well for selling the murderer the murder weapon, it really isn't, as, like previously stated, the store had no knowledge of his intent with the weapon. The store could make assumptions, but a courtroom doesn't want assumptions, it wants evidence. Gopnik lastly goes on to say that handguns should be outlawed. He states, "If having a loaded semi-automatic handgun kept you safe, cops would not be shot as often as they are." I have one question following that statement: What guns, then, should police officers use? Pursuit would be fairly difficult on foot if an officer was carrying a fully loaded shotgun or assault rifle, and the weapon could be knocked out of his hands more easily. Plus, the use of a handgun leaves one hand free for things like flashlights. He does however, say that guns should be used (with control) for hunting. I, being the hunter that I am, agree with Adam on this. Overall, this is a very well-written, well-worded persuasive essay with a unique intro and a clear main point, but I do not agree with all of the points given in this essay.

Now, onto Ms. Sontag's report:

Here we have another well-written report, this one related to the 2001 terrorist attacks on 9/11. It focuses  on what the media and government think of the attacks: it happened, but everything's O.K. and the United States is O.K. Over 3000 innocent Americans died that day, but everything's O.K.? Where's the sensitivity?
I completely agree with the point this essay is making: our government and media do nothing to solve these problems, but they say "everything's going to be O.K.". Early in the easy the topic of cowardice comes up. She states that the media or citizens believe that someone who did something like this is a coward who attacks "civilization", as Susan puts in her report. Although cowardice appears only once throughout the whole essay, I believe it is one of the main points Sontag was trying to make. The US media and government is showing cowardice by refusing to stand up and do something about the problems our country has by passing legislation. Instead they avoid them by saying "everything's going to be O.K.", and they just forget about it. Until another similar problem comes up. And Ms. Sontag writes about this in her essay: "A few shreds of history awareness might help us understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen." Basically, she's saying that history repeats itself, and, in this situation, another attack will occur again. And when something like the 9/11 attacks does happen again, maybe the government and media will confront the problem  instead of just saying "it's going to be O.K."