Tournament Debate: Gun Rights

Argument for gun control 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. Nevertheless, I commend it to my opponent that he accepts that we ought to save human lives where possible. 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) (1) Extent of gun control (2) 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. I am aware that correlation does not necessarily entail causation, but if there is a clear potential link between two variables then it is likely that correlation does imply causation. The fact that firearms are often used as murder weapons demonstrates a clear causal connection between firearm regulation and homicide rate. As both of my premises have now been verified, the conclusion logically follows that we ought to implement gun control. Rebuttals Con's argument is essentially that civilian-owned firearms would help resist a tyrannical government. I have several points here: 1. Con presents a false dichotomy between the Government and the populace. In reality, the Government is formed of the populace and is elected by them - so the issue of corruption is a lot more complex than simple two-sided conflict between the state and its populace. 2. If the populace did own firearms, and they decided to use them against the Government there would be absolute anarchy. A contemporary example would be the recent Syrian civil war where armed civilians has led to hundreds of disorganised militias causing death and destruction all over Syria. (3) 3. The US government is one of the most stable governments in the world; hence it would be extremely unlikely for it to become corrupt to the extent it would attack its own civilians. Severe corruption (by which I mean that there is a real danger to the population) is virtually unheard of in rich modern democracies. 4. It is impractical to prevent life-saving regulation now out of fear of very unlikely events that may or may not happen in the future. The likelihood that the government would certainly turn corrupt and attack its own civilians is probably around the likelihood that there will be an alien invasion in the next century, even famous physicist Stephen Hawking attested to this probability (4). Yet it is silly to introduce counter-alien invasion legislature in a tenuous attempt to prepare for this vague possibility, especially if doing so would endanger lives. Similar to Con's argument, it is silly to allow citizens to possess firearms, tanks etc... in an attempt to prepare for the small possibility that the government could turn on its citizens, and even if the citizens did fight back it would cause another civil war in all likelihood. More to the point, allowing citizens to possess firearms as well as even deadlier weapons would be likely to increase the homicide rate (as my argument shows). 5. Who defines corruption? Whether it is prudent to use firearms against the government is a subjective decision. An animal rights activist would think it prudent to use firearms against the government if they deemed it necessary to stop animal experimentation. The very essence of a civilian populace is that it doesn't really agree on anything. There is no objective point at which it becomes appropriate to employ firearms against the government. Conclusion I have given a cogent argument that demonstrates that we ought to reduce the homicide rate and increasing gun control is a prudent way to accomplish this. It is extremely unlikely that the government would turn corrupt and attack its citizens, so we should not let this stand in the way of legislation that would be far more likely to save lives. (1) http://chartsbin.com... (2) http://blog.mapsofworld.com... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...