With gun violence seemingly high, it only makes sense that there are more and more gun debates trying to increase restrictions on any firearm that could cause damage to large groups of people. There are essentially two sides to this debate that gain the most support. Representing each side in this gun debate are NRA's Wayne LaPierre and Rebecca Peters who is an international gun ban proponent of the group IANSA. They both heavily rely on logos in order to get their arguments across to the audience in order to gain support and it becomes clear who has done a much more sufficient amount of research as the debate goes on. In such a diverse topic, it is important to ensure that every fact and figure being presented is one that is relevant and vital to an argument in order to gain an edge on either side, and in this topic, it is clear that logic is the most vital to make appeals to in order to gain support. It is clear that anybody can attain a gun at any time with the proper contacts, so why take away personal protection from the innocent because of the few guilty, irresponsible gun owners? Through the course of LaPierre's and Peters' debate, it becomes clear that each are using logos in their own way, Peters was trying to direct her argument to those who have, in some way, been affected by guns, whereas LaPierre was taking the stance that handheld firearms are used as a means of defense for law abiding citizens.

At the beginning of the debate, LaPierre and Peters are both given 12 minutes to establish their stance on the question "should the United States Senate support the proposed United Nation's treaty that bans private ownership of guns (goRSSTV)?" In the duration of Peters' introduction, she announces that she is representing the group IANSA which is a group who is against guns, as well as the amount of supporting groups that the organization has such as churches, lawyers, and women groups (goRSSTV). Through this, she allows logos to form a sense of ethos among the audience as it makes her claims seem to be much more trustworthy and accurate towards the debate. LaPierre formed a similar introduction announcing his affiliation  with the National Rifle Association which seems to be surrounded with a misunderstanding of intentions on the association. As he continues his introduction, he introduces the concept that the NRA is not for everyone owning guns, but for allowing law abiding citizens to keep their right to own firearms for self protection while cancelling out several claims that Peters had made, thus forming his appeal to logos in the audience. When Peters finally ended her introduction, LaPierre had plenty of her views to work with and retaliate against when making his points, Peters came to the stage and was stating that crime rates in America due to guns have been rising steadily whereas in Australia, where many bans have been put on private ownership of guns, gun related crimes have been dropping. LaPierre managed to rebut the statements with more up to date statistics that came directly from the governments stating the exact opposite of many figures that Peters had claimed. He also brought to the table additional information that in London, one is six times more likely to be mugged than in New York City. Through statistics and personal beliefs, LaPierre formed a case based on logos which factors in both ethos and pathos as supporting details towards his argument. While both Peters and LaPierre opened the debate with seemingly well rounded points to argue, their appeals were supposed to be directed towards the question of whether or not the American Senate should support the UN's proposal, only LaPierre managed to stay on task while forming a much more reputable argument while shutting down some rather absurd accusations from Peters behalf which lowers her attempted appeal to logos. Ultimately, the appeals to logos are formed from the ability to produce relative points, appeal to the biggest group that needed persuasion, and keep the debate focused around the question asked to stimulate the debate.

The next step in the debate involved answering questions that the host had thought of during each introduction. Peters attempted to talk about guns as if they were all large machine gun grade weapons, which was an attempt to make a grab at all of the less knowledgeable people on the issue of guns. To discredit her appeal to logos, LaPierre calls it out and states that the NRA does not support any chemical, nuclear, or assault weapons to be bought by a citizen, but instead support a the private ownership of small arms such as pistols, and rifles and shotguns that are meant for sport and hunting. To further establish a logical stance, LaPierre brings a sign asking "should you shoot a rapist before he cuts your throat" creating a rhetorical answer that naturally would be yes (goRSSTV). In response, Peters ruins her logos appeal even more by saying women should just live where an entire society respects women's rights which is an optimistic goal, but is, unfortunately, an unlikely one. It is impossible to expect an entire society to respect women, there will always be at least one person who has a criminal offense against women, or is abusive towards women. As a result she has lost almost all her appeal by saying that women should not be able to protect themselves, but live in places that respect them and can protect them, there is no where that can fully protect its citizens, having the ability to protect oneself is essential.

Logos, the appeal to logic, is one essentially the most important rhetorical appeals that can be made in an argument, especially when it can factor in both ethos and pathos like Wayne LaPierre tactfully managed to do. Using logos also created the opportunity for LaPierre to dominate the debate while successfully combatting each of Rebecca Peters arguments for stricter gun controls. With both introducing their stances with large appeals to logos, along with ethos and pathos, it seems as though the debate would end with a evenly split audience for both sides, but the questions and answers portion dramatically shifted the sides to the NRA stance on small arms. By forming an argument around logos, and having the ability to backup points is key to gaining the most support, emotional and credibility appeals can change in an instant if the goal is unclear or a illegitimate source is found in background research. By sticking to logos, the majority (65%) of the audience supported LaPierre's argument in the end. It is clear the appeal to logic is what won this debate, as well as sufficient preparation by doing background research, logos is the one appeal that will last through the times.

