Gun Control

My case for gun control argues along the line of two general points: 1. Even if gun control is unconstitutional (which I will refute in round 3), this is not a satisfactory argument against gun control. 2. Gun control will save lives Argument against the constitution The only way in which the US constitution can be employed to refute the instigation of gun control is if it is shown to be an infallible document. Infallible is defined as: 'incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.' (1) I argue that the US constitution is not infallible, and so it cannot be used as an ad hoc rebuttal of the argument in favour of gun control. This argument is formed of the following premises and conclusion: P1: The fallibility of a proposition is dependent on the fallibility of its creators P2: The founding fathers created the US constitution (2) P3: The founding fathers were fallible C: Therefore, the US constitution is fallible Note that I am not saying that the US constitution should be discarded, I am saying that it ought not to be used to justify the prevention of potentially-life-saving legislation. To summarise, I have proved the the US constitution is not infallible, which is to say that it is capable of being incorrect. This means that the second amendment to the constitution could be, in part, incorrect. In the absence of certainty we must use reason to determine what regulation we should place on firearm ownership; appealing to the second amendment is a gross overestimation of its veracity. The life-saving argument This argument takes the form: P1: If further regulation of X will save lives, then further regulation of X ought to be implemented P2: Increased gun control will save lives C: Increased gun control ought to be implemented. I will justify this argument by individually justifying its premises. Premise 1 This is a moral statement, which is to say that we should analyse its ethical veracity in order to ascertain whether it is a justified premise. We can do this from a couple of different perspectives: Utilitarian view: Implementation of life-saving regulation will save lives. The losing of one's life, or the risk of losing it, is painful and therefore creates unhappiness. Therefore we ought to implement life-saving regulation. Deontological view: Killing is an intrinsically immoral act, so if increased regulation will reduce the amount of killing that occurs, then this regulation ought to be implemented. I could apply the premise to more ethical theories, but the answer will generally be the same. Therefore, premise 1 is justified. Premise 2 This is the most disputed premise, but nevertheless it is still correct. I will prove it so by appealing to statistical evidence: Country Murder rate (per 100,000 people) (3) Extent of gun control (4) UK 1.57 Medium USA 5.22 Weak Russia 14.18 Weak China 1.21 Strong Canada 1.67 Medium Here we can see a distinct negative correlation between murder rate and the extent of gun control. This strongly implies that gun control saves lives. As both of my premises have now been verified, the conclusion logically follows that we ought to implement gun control. I will now pass over to my opponent! (1) Google: 'Define infallible' (2) http://www.constitutionfacts.com... (3) http://chartsbin.com... (4) http://blog.mapsofworld.com...