| really enjoyed reading your analysis. Something that works well in it is your introduction. You briefly explained what the author did in her article and your thesis statement. One thing that | would suggest is to add some information about what the author said about her main idea of gun control being a big issue. | would want to see what the author actually said about it, if it makes more sense. Also, don't forget the Works Cited page, like | did. Other than that, great job! 1. Your thesis was easy to find in your introductory paragraph. "lvins uses humor to talk about this serious issue, which helps her connect with the reader and make her point in a lighter way." Your paper will being discussing how humor is used to discuss a serious issue. 2. | really appreciated how your quotes were cited and you have great punctuation. 3. You might be able to collapse a few of the smaller paragraphs into larger paragraphs so the points your are writing about are presented as stronger points with the sentences supporting one another. 4. Reviewing your paragraph formation might help create a stronger writing style. Great job! Jacob Gun to a Knife Fight: Molly Ivins' Argument on Gun Control [n her thoughtful article "Get A Knife, Get A Dog, But Get Rid of Guns," Molly Ivins talks about gun control in America. Instead of using serious or angry language, Ivins makes her readers laugh while showing how dangerous guns can be. She believes that ordinary people should not have such easy access to guns. Ivins uses humor to talk about this serious issue, which helps her connect with the reader and make her point in a lighter way. One thing that makes Ivins' argument stand out is her use of humor. She uses jokes and sarcasm to help her readers relax while thinking about a difficult topic. For example, she says, "A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We'd turn into a whole nation of great runners" (Ivins 450). Here, she jokes that if people replaced guns with knives, they would get healthier because they would have to run to catch someone to harm them. This joke is funny, but it also shows how ridiculous it is to have so many guns in the first place. By making her readers laugh, Ivins helps them think about gun control without feeling overwhelmed. Ivins also uses her humor to point out America's obsession with guns. She compares guns to cars, which are dangerous but highly regulated. She says, "We license cars and their owners, make sure they are sane and sober, and keep track of who sells them" (Ivins 451). By comparing guns to cars, Ivins argues that it makes no sense for guns to be less regulated than cars. If cars are dangerous and need rules, guns should have even stricter rules because they are designed to kill. Her funny examples help make this important point. Even though Ivins' jokes are clever, some people might think that using humor for such a serious topic could make it seem less important. Gun control is a big issue, and some might feel that jokes don't fully show how serious it is. However, Ivins' style makes her argument easier to read and understand. Even though she uses humor, she still makes strong points about how dangerous guns are and how they should be better controlled. In her article, Molly Ivins uses humor to talk about gun control, a very serious issue in America. Her jokes make it easier for readers to engage with her argument and think about the problems with guns in our society. Ivins' ability to make people laugh while discussing gun laws shows that humor can be a powerful tool in talking about serious topics. General American public- Ivins' article targets a broad audience, including people who are interested in political and social issues, especially gun control. Her use of humor and satire suggests she is writing for readers who can appreciate these rhetorical devices and who are likely to engage with serious topics through a more accessible and entertaining lens. Politically engaged readers- Given her focus on the second amendment and gun control, Ivins is likely writing for individuals who have some level of interest or stake in political debates and reforms. Her references to the NRA and debates around the Second Amendment assume the