1 / 12

“Why Gun ‘Control’ is Not Enough” (Jeff McMahan)

“Why Gun ‘Control’ is Not Enough” (Jeff McMahan). What are his arguments? How to evaluate them. ARGUMENT FOR (1) (1A) We have more guns than other developed societies and more violence. (1B) Like nuclear arms race: to compete, criminals get more powerful guns, better strategy, more armor

monifa
Télécharger la présentation

“Why Gun ‘Control’ is Not Enough” (Jeff McMahan)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “Why Gun ‘Control’ is Not Enough” (Jeff McMahan) What are his arguments? How to evaluate them

  2. ARGUMENT FOR (1) (1A) We have more guns than other developed societies and more violence. (1B) Like nuclear arms race: to compete, criminals get more powerful guns, better strategy, more armor (1C) Ordinary conflicts escalate (1D) There are more accidents and mistakes [could have added: more suicides, more lethal domestic violence] (1E) Bad guys get good guys’ guns (1F) Police are weakened MAIN ARGUMENT (1) Gun ownership increases violence, not safety. (2) The second amendment is obsolete. (3) Banning guns would be more effective than alcohol/drug prohibition (4) We have a right to security, not a right to self-defense with guns. (C) Private gun ownership should be banned.* *He talks about target shooting at “the range” and a “scope for debate” about “private possession of single chamber shotguns for hunting” (p. 3)

  3. Background data from Brady campaign to prevent gun violence • U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher (Richardson, p.1). Among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States (Richardson, p. 1). • Higher household gun ownership correlates with higher rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings (Harvard Injury Control Center). • Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17 (Kellermann, 1992, p. 467; Wiebe, p. 771). • Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of homicide by a factor of 3 (Kellermann, 1993, p. 1084). • A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide (11x), criminal assault or homicide (7x), or unintentional shooting death or injury (4x) than to be used in a self-defense shooting. (Kellermann, 1998, p. 263). • Guns are used to intimidate and threaten 4 to 6 times more often than they are used to thwart crime (Hemenway, p. 269). • Every year there are only about 200 legally justified self-defense homicides by private citizens (FBI, Expanded Homicide Data, Table 15) compared with over 30,000 gun deaths (NCIPC). • A 2009 study found that people in possession of a gun are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault (Branas).

  4. MAIN ARGUMENT (1) Gun ownership increases violence, not safety. (2) The second amendment is obsolete. (3) Banning guns would be more effective than alcohol/drug prohibition (4) We have a right to security, not a right to self-defense with guns. (C) Private gun ownership should be banned. ARGUMENT FOR (2) (2A) In our society today, “democratic procedures” are best way of challenging government, not “armed insurrection” (p. 2) (2B) We now rely on Army, Navy, etc. for national defense Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  5. MAIN ARGUMENT (1) Gun ownership increases violence, not safety. (2) The second amendment is obsolete. (3) Banning guns would be more effective than alcohol/drug prohibition (4) We have a right to security, not a right to self-defense with guns. (C) Private gun ownership should be banned. ARGUMENT FOR (3) (3A) Desire for drugs/alcohol is “independent of what other people may do” (p. 3) (3B) Desire for guns depends on perceived security Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  6. MAIN ARGUMENT (1) Gun ownership increases violence, not safety. (2) The second amendment is obsolete. (3) Banning guns would be more effective than alcohol/drug prohibition (4) A gun ban would not violate our fundamental rights. (C) Private gun ownership should be banned. ARGUMENT FOR (4) (4A) The relevant fundamental right is the right to “security against attack” (p. 4) (4B) That right is respected by a policy that reduces attacks while also reducing one method of self-defense

  7. Evaluating Arguments

  8. GOOD ARGUMENTS • The premises are all true. • The reasoning from premises to conclusion is good.

  9. TWO WAYS FOR AN ARGUMENTTO BE BAD • False premises • Reasoning from premises to conclusion is bad

  10. Constructing a rebuttal • Choose one: arguments for 1, 2, 3, 4 OR main argument • If you choose arguments for 1, 2, 3, or 4 … • Are the premises true? • Is the reasoning from premises to conclusion good? • If you choose the main argument … • Is the reasoning good?

  11. Reasoning vs. Data • If you are challenging a data-based premise, you need good data, from a reliable source • If you are challenging a reason-based premise you need good reasoning

  12. ARGUMENT FOR (1) (1A) We have more guns than other developed societies and more violence. (1B) Like nuclear arms race: to compete, criminals get more powerful guns, better strategy, more armor (1C) Ordinary conflicts escalate (1D) There are more accidents and mistakes [could have added: more suicides, more lethal domestic violence] (1E) Bad guys get good guys’ guns (1F) Police are weakened MAIN ARGUMENT (1) Gun ownership increases violence, not safety. (2) The second amendment is obsolete. (3) Banning guns would be more effective than alcohol/drug prohibition (4) We have a right to security, not a right to self-defense with guns. (C) Private gun ownership should be banned.* ARGUMENT FOR (2) (2A) In our society today, “democratic procedures” are best way of challenging government, not “armed insurrection” (p. 2) (2B) We now rely on Army, Navy, etc. for national defense ARGUMENT FOR (3) (3A) Desire for drugs/alcohol is “independent of what other people may do” (p. 3) (3B) Desire for guns depends on perceived security ARGUMENT FOR (4) (4A) The relevant fundamental right is the right to “security against attack” (p. 4) (4B) That right is respected by a policy that reduces attacks while also reducing one method of self-defense

More Related