Introduction Draft

       Fallacies in society are evident in todays world just as they have been present in the worlds of the past as well. Patricia Roberts Miller is a rhetoric writing professor at the University of California, Berkeley, a very prestigious and a well educated woman. She wrote, "Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric" a well known article that puts demagoguery discourse and everyday fallacies into different lights. Roberts Miller mainly focuses on the idea of Demagoguery throughout her article, which is by "which an out-group should be punished for the current problems of the in-group". Using Roberts Millers demagoguery discourse elements as laid out by her article, we compare it with NRA executive Vice President's Wayne LaPierre's speech to the public just shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut to see how some of these discourse elements are embedded n his work. It is clear that this is article is a very emotional piece due to the massacre that occurred just days before, and LaPierre is speaking to notify his audience of parents and the general American public about what can and should be done to prevent further incidents such as Sandy Hook. LaPierre's central claim lies in the question, "If guns are good to protect the president, or a bank...Why is it so bad to have guns to protect our loved ones [our children] as well?" In this paper, I will take two elements of LaPierre's speech given just after the Sandy Hook tragedy and see how or if they conform to certain demagoguery discourse characteristics as pointed out by Patricia Miller Robert's paper.