The debate over gun control and regulation has been a major debate over the decades. NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, in his speech on the Newtown shooting on December 21, 2012, addresses the issue of gun control and argues that guns are not the cause of gun violence. LaPierre's plan is to increase the number of guns instead of controlling guns and decreasing the number, to solve the problem of gun violence. On the other side of the debate, an American journalist, Nicholas Kristof, in his diary, "Do we have the courage to stop all this?" argues that firearms are the cause of gun violence, but should not be banned. Kristof's plan is to regulate weapons with great caution. Although these two authors have different topics and projects, they use similar strategies to advance their claims. This article will focus on how each author strategically uses compare and contrast, cause and effect, and problem solving to advance their claims and the effectiveness of these strategies. Both LaPierre and Kristof compare and contrast to advance their arguments. To support his argument that children should be more protected, LaPierre explains the similarities and differences between children and the rest of the nation. Explain that people care about their money, so they protect banks with armed guards; they care for the president so they protect him with armed secret service agents (LaPierre 6-7). Then compare how people take care of their children, but they are not as protected as the other things they care about. Using this compare and contrast helps the audience understand the problem of children not being protected. It shows the problem that people do not fully protect all the things they see in the middle of the paper and the consequences that come with it, and introduces the lack of protection of children and the solution to solve it. Kristof compares firearms to cars and ladders, explains the results of gun violence, and introduces the problem of much gun violence and the solution to stricter gun regulations. I agree with LaPierre's views on gun control, but overall Kristof has a stronger argument than LaPierre because Kristof uses his strategies more effectively than LaPierre. Although LaPierre appeals to pathos and Krsitof does not, Kristof discusses his strategies in more detail and appeals to logos while LaPierre does not. By examining multiple perspectives in the conversation about gun controls and regulations, the public can understand more than just one idea and think more deeply about their own views on gun controls and regulations..