Argumentative Summary: Buying A Gun Does Not Make You Safe

1690 Words 7 Pages
Validity This argument is not valid if you interpret the thesis an meaning that owning a gun will never in any circumstances make you safer. He quotes a study saying that there was a case of a woman using a gun in self defense. He also says they are not more effective than other forms of self-defense, but that means they are still better than no self-defense, therefore able to make you safer. Because of this the absolute statement of owning a gun does not make you safer this argument can not be taken as valid. If the thesis is taken as meaning owning a gun will not make you safer than alternatives the argument is valid. If each of the arguments are true then owning a gun does not provide more safety than other means, meaning they are not …show more content…
Not being more effective than other things makes a gun useless. (warrant for premise #3) This is a bad assumption because they are still useful, If they are equal in effectiveness what is the logical difference? This could also be looked at from the point of view that a gun can cause more harm and therefore should provide better protection for the added risk; and if it doesn’t provide more protection there are better options after considering the pros and cons.
Hurting your family is bad. (warrant for premise #4) Everyone should agree with this, if not they need mental help.
Criminals getting guns is a bad thing. (warrant for premise #5) Most people should agree with this, except criminals.
Crime is directly related to your safety. This assumption is not true, there are many types of crime, most never involving your safety at all.
The studies and statistics hold true for all places in America. Tho reasonable this can not be true, there are going to be some cases where guns can benefit one person more than others and actually be
…show more content…
He is so sure he is right on the topic he talks down to the other side. He clearly argues that guns are never a better choice which is not true because there are always exceptions to blanket claims like that. Guns can protect you and because of that Premise #4 without evidence is almost attacking gun owners saying they are either negligent or mentally unstable to the point of potentially killing themselves or others. Premise #5 is unfair to gun owners because he basically says their fund will be stollen and used by criminals. Logical fallacies Slippery slope: The statement that gun theft is the main pathway that criminals get guns implies that owning a gun will lead to it being stolen and used by criminals. This implication is a slippery slope because the likelihood of owning a gun then having it stollen then having it used by criminals is proceeding too far down a list of possibilities. Ad Hominem: He makes the opposing side of the argument seem weaker by making it seem the other side consists purely of people who do not know what there talking about through the use of

Related Documents