I recently attended a gun control lecture by a guest speaker.  He opened up by talking about how guns have corrupted and destroyed our so called “safe-enviornments” such as schools and universities.  He used well known cases such as the Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech shootings, but his argument fell flat.  The lecture was not based on facts but opinions, and as Plato would say, he did not have the knack let alone expertise of rhetoric.

The guest speaker did not have any concept of the art of persuasion.  Though he was supposed to come and speak on gun control he only really talked about getting rid of firearms completely.  There was no compromise or even telling the audience what they wanted to hear.  In this instance I would agree with Socrates from Plato’s Gorgias and say that this man has no real knowledge of what is good or bad.  By eliminating guns completely and taking that right away from American citizens would cause an uproar in the United States.  It would never work.  People will still buy and issue guns except it would be done illegally.  By simply stating that the country would be better off without guns with no further description or reason is just giving an opinion not an argument and is masking the problem.

No matter what side of the argument the speaker fell on or decided to take it is his lack of deductive argumentation that makes this speaker a flatterer, but only to those on his particular side.  This speaker had a lack of knowledge of the good and simply repeated the same point over and over again in different terms and phrases.  Overall, I was very disappointed in this lecture not because I didn’t get to hear what I wanted to hear, but because the speaker did not at any point make me see the good in what he was talking about.