How to Reduce Shootings is Nicholas Kristof’s editorial article in the New York Times that suggests numerous approaches to tackling the unprecedented rate of gun violence in the United States. Kristoff has not only deduced his findings from quantitative research but also encapsulated qualitative analysis related research reports in explaining critical issues about gun violence. Since Kristof’s editorial piece comprehensively referenced numerous research studies, the quality of evidence is impeccable, exemplary, and outstanding, hence befits the status of an unsullied and informative report for a word-class newspaper such as the New York Times. Kristof’s reliance on statistical evidence from previous research studies and his decision to posit certain perspectives on a critical issue such as gun violence reflect both strengths and weaknesses of evidence in the editorial piece.

Type of evidence I am most impressed by. I admire Kristof’s reliance on statistical evidence from credible and authentic research reports to justify his opinions concerning gun violence. To give an illustration, Kristof inferred findings from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (gun murder), to elucidate the glaring and significant differences between the gun murders per 100,000 people among the developed nations (Kristof). From that report, Kristof deduced that the United States is highly ranked as the country with the highest gun murder rates in every 100,000 persons (Kristof). The fact that Kristof inferred his findings from such a credible research report augments the authenticity of his editorial piece.

Though Kristof’s editorial piece largely relied on quantitative statistical evidence from credible sources, such pieces of evidences may be inaccurate, outdated, or biased. To give an illustration, Kristof’s deduction on the death per one hundred motor vehicles traveled while comparing it with the gun-related deaths may be slightly misleading and irrelevant. Precisely, Kristof resorted to a research study that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted since 1950 (Kristof). As a result, comparing the deaths resulting from motor vehicle accidents in 1950 would lead to skewed results when compared to gun-related deaths in 2019. Still, the inference is a clear pointer that Kristoff pegged his reasoning on empirical data even though some might have been outdated.

Another Type of Evidence. Besides statistical data, Kristof has used significantly used anecdotal evidence in the report. For example, he has drawn a comparison between the gun-related deaths in the United States as well as the ease of access to assault grade weapons with the ease and permission to buy an anti-aircraft gun or a tank in Yemen (Kristof). From this point of view, Kristof asserts that the lax in gun safety laws will likely lead to a violent society just like certain neighborhoods in Yemen. The comparison is entirely pegged on Kristof’s personal experience in Yemen. The anecdotal evidence in the editorial piece has both merits and drawbacks in augmenting Kristof’s argument. One evident strength is the imaginary use picture of a war-torn nation such as Yemen while drawing comparison over the permissiveness to own different guns in the two countries. Through such an imaginary pictorial comparison, Kristoff persuades his readers to understand the urgent need for intervention on gun violence, thereby advancing his argument. On the other hand, the fact that the comparison is entirely anecdotal and lacks any empirical data points to mere assumptions by the writer.

Taking everything about Kristof’s editorial piece into consideration, the evidences are largely persuasive and convincing. Therefore, the article is well argued in a simple, elaborate, and detailed approach. Specifically, the statistical evidence, empirical data, as well as the anecdotal evidence are complementary in the entire article. Regarding the need to gather more information about the topic, I would access recent research journals from credible online libraries such as JSTOR and EBSCO.