Argumentative Essay: The Meaning Of Owning A Gun

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…
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