With gun violence seemingly high, more debates on taking action to restrict firearms are rising. These debates essentially consist of two extremes with no median, pro-personal firearms and anti-personal firearms. This particular debate, The Great UN Gun Debate, has two representatives, Wayne LaPierre who is representing the NRA, and Rebecca Peters who is representing IANSA, an international group seeking to reduce small arms globally. For each argument, logos is most effective appeal due to the fact guns are surrounded by controversy. In order to gain support for both sides, statistics and example situations are mentioned to appeal to the logic of the audience. The argument IANSA uses is that if guns are banned, nobody can attain a gun, which quickly is shut down by the NRA that suggests bad people can obtain guns, so good people need to keep guns for protection. 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.

In order to organize the debate, each representative was given twelve minutes to introduce their arguments to the audience in order to create a better understanding of each side's objectives, then followed with questions to clear up any confusions and explain methods of how they will manage their goals. The question LaPierre and Peters are to base their arguments on is "should the United States Senate support the proposed United Nation's Treaty that bans private ownership of guns (goRSSTV)?" Peters started her introduction through an explanation of what her group, IANSA, was and that it was supported by groups such as churches, lawyers, and women groups (goRSSTV). Through an explanation of being supported by high standing groups, it appeals to the logic of the audience who is already supporting her angle, and possibly many undecided viewers. She became trustworthy to many viewers through this appeal which naturally adds to the overall argument that is being attempted. In LaPierre's twelve minutes, he introduced himself as representing the National Rifle Association which seemed to be surrounded by misunderstanding. He explains that the association is not for assault weapons staying in the market, as that is illegal, but he and the NRA are all for law abiding citizens to keep their guns as a means of self-protection as well as firearms used for hunting. This statement cancelled out accusations that Peters had made that the NRA was supporting assault weapons and automatic firearms. Through LaPierre's strategic use of cancelling out accusations that Peters had made in her argument, a greater appeal to logic is made, thus depleting the trustworthy nature that Peters had previously established as it seemed she was blatantly exaggerating her claims. Peters also had made a claim that gun-related crime has been steadily rising in America, and that in Australia, where private ownership of firearms had been banned, they had greatly decreased. LaPierre rebutted with some figures that he had obtained from Australia's government system that displayed the exact opposite of Peters' claim. LaPierre also brought figures from London that stated one is six times more likely to be mugged on a street than in New York City after their gun restrictions had been finalized. Through a vast use of logos on each party's side, it became clear that LaPierre had formed the stronger argument as he managed to stay on the question asked while countering strong, inaccurate claims Peters had made.

The next portion, questions based on the representatives' introductions, was used to further explain points and methods each side would use in order to maintain their positions on gun control. In order to gain more support from the less knowledgeable, Peters attempted to use an approach that made guns all sound as if they were high powered with rapid fire rates. Immediately after Peters finished answering the question at hand, LaPierre called her out and explained the differences between semi-automatic firearms which he is defending and large assault weapons that are used in mass shootings that are illegal for citizens to own. He also states that the NRA does not support chemical, nuclear, or assault weapons, but do support private ownership of small arms as well as hunting firearms if the citizen abides by the law. Increasing the logical stance, LaPierre introduced a question he had asked twenty years before, "should you shoot a rapist before he cuts your throat" creating a rhetorical question with an answer that is naturally yes (goRSSTV). Peters' response managed to almost completely discredit herself by stating that women should just live where an entire society respects women's rights which is an optimistic goal, but is highly unlikely. There is always at least one person who completely disrespects women's rights as well as abusing them or worse. Once each had further explained their positions through answering questions, LaPierre seemed to be the only representative that kept most if not all of his arguments logical appeal, as he states that it is a right to be able to protect yourselves whereas Peters was saying live in a place where everyone respects you.

For this particular debate, emotions and credibility are the least reliable to form an argument, as emotions can change over time as well as credibility if any unwanted information is attained. Logic is an argument that always stays true, statistics and other figures cannot change from that particular time, only over time can aspects change. With reliance on logos, the arguments formed started out seamlessly both implementing their arguments, but as questions were asked, logos was lost in IANSA's cause and gained by the NRA. With Wayne LaPierre's ability to ability to introduce points as well as back them up, the logic clearly takes over the audience as 65% of the viewers supported his argument over Peters. Without the use of logos, the debate would not have been as efficient, and claims and appeals would be scattered in an attempt to win the audience over.

