Gun ownership has a positive effect on society

Point of order: I must point out that your technically arguing against concepts rather than refuting arguments. Also, you stated there have been logical fallacies, but never stated which ones… not that this is necessary with concepts for which the evidence has not been viewed. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Argument 1: positive effect Observations: New England has some of the freest gun laws of any state in the US. New England is comprised of; Main, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut. All of which are ‘shall issue states', which will give out licences without any questions asked, in almost all of them you can buy guns without a license, and legally carry them in a holster for all to see. Massachusetts however, issues its licenses through the police, however most of above points still apply. According to wikipedia: "…New England had the lowest crime rates, for both violent and property crimes. New England states also had the lowest homicide rates in the country." -Wikipedia Crime_in_the_United_States "550 rapes and 1100 murders are prevented every day, by brandishing a firearm." -The US Buro of justice statistics "57% of felons worry about meeting an armed victim than the police." -The US Buro of justice statistics "Serious injury to women during an attack is 2.5 times greater, if they are unarmed" -US department of Justice Hypothesis: How then, do we explain the presence of guns in a less regulated form, and a extremely low crime rate? Could it be that guns make a state safer by reducing the crime at the grass roots level where it occurs? How would we know that this effect is due to guns and not some other anomaly unique to New England? What of the other states, which have civilian gun ownership, but higher crime rates? Theory: The only way we can know if this is the case is by testing it under controlled conditions. Wait, people already try to control the conditions… they use… dictatorship. And that takes me nicely on to the next argument. Argument 2: Prerequisite of dictatorship Point 1: I support the use of guns not only because I distrust others, but because I do not believe that inequality of arms will lead to equality of freedoms and rights. Point 2: A prerequisite of power is a process called consolidation*. In this context the word is taken to mean the physical action of merging interests and powers under one man or group of men. The consolidation of weapons into the hands of the few, to maintain control over the many, weather this control is benevolent or malevolent or not, it still flies in the face of the concept of equal rights. This consolidation is often historically accomplished by creating paranoia and distrust in the community of free peoples, this often results in a public outcry to restrain the actions of the distrusted individuals by; law regulation, imprisonment, and removal of rights. This tactic follows the time worn principles of divide and conquer. The free people are factionalised into separate groups and the freedoms are split or reduced. In democratic wording, they would no longer form the largest majority. This state of affairs of reducing freedoms can only be accomplished by the centralised man or group of men which are attempting to consolidate their power by reducing the power of others. This may have been what prompted such quotes: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck." ~Frederick Douglass, speech, Civil Rights Mass Meeting, Washington, D.C., 1883 It may be worth while to point out that both these quotes are separated by more than a hundred years, indicating an enduring concept. Point 3: The ‘founding fathers' of the US constitution knew the risks of consolidating power into the hands of the few. They had just finished fighting a revolutionary war with British Empire, and were aware that the primary cause, and enabling element of this fighting is that the British Crown Monarch was in complete control of their entire army. Therefore they resolved to remove the army from a central dictatorship, by decentralising weapons into a militia with the 2nd amendment. They hoped that this equality of arms would always combat the inequality of dictatorships. *"Consolidation combination of two or more Acts, Bills, or Statutes to be placed before Parliament; a combining of two or more sources of income, the union of two benefices or offices of State"—Wilkes. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Rebuttles: "the word "attempt", and said that all attempts qualify as a prerequesite for dictatorship, we can assume that even a failed attempt to restrict guns is a prerequesite." I see no reason why the dictator would have no failed attempts before a success, indicating a learning period. Not just that, I think they will always be doomed to fail as dictatorship is not the default setting of society or an ecosystem, of which, humans are a part. "Guns having a positive effect on society doesn't make them a right, it merely makes them a good thing." This is actually an appeal to authority fallacy. You are effectively stating that rights are not instantaneously created as soon as it becomes positive to do so, but mainly because it is written in a legal document, which is an appeal to some perceived authority which supports the same position as my opponent. Furthermore, if you live in the US, it IS written under the constitution and IS a right. Furthermore, this makes any anti-gun advocates fit the definition of a hate group as they seek to destabilise an established right. "By my opponent's logic, if we proved that stealing had a positive effect on society at one point, it must be a right. Which is obviously absurd." Its only absurd if your making an appeal to authority fallacy. The fact of the matter is that thievery is conducted all the time when it has a positive effect on society. For example: the oil in the middle east, taxation without providing information on how and where the taxes are being used, annexation of land. The list goes on. Even the act of picking an apple from a tree is close to thievery. "Thus making a barrett .50 cal illegal would be a sign of dictatorship. Now how does that make sense? There is a very good reason this kind of sniper rifle is illegal: it's so completely dangerous." Well, apart from pointing out that everything is dangerous: human nails, human teeth, vehicles, how do you expect to increase safety to a reasonable level? By taking responsibility? Mashing everyone's food into a slurry? That's called nannying and is both a socialist idea and a prerequisite of dictatorship. How else, could a dictator who knows best act? Without taking the responsibility, by force, away from the people. I think what my opponent is actually trying to say is that we should mitigate danger where every we find it, and that, while Americans have universal rights to bear arms, they do not have an inalienable right to a Barret .50 cal. But what he has not realised yet, is that all freedoms have an element of risk to other people, free speech, freedom of congress, etc. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ In order to win this round my opponent will have to: - Disprove that he has created several appeals to authority fallacies - Disprove each of the points listed in argument 2 - Disprove each of the statistics in argument 1 * Definition of consolidation is presently the legal one used here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...