Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
EEKENTGUNCONTROLDEBATE
54
Gun Control
Presented by E.E. KENT For COMM 209
Intro To Gun Control
The Right to Bear Arms
1. Intro
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that citizens are entitled to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and that "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Many people believe very different things about how to honor the right to bear arms--or even whether or not the right to bear arms is relevant to modern society.
Gun Control
"Gun control" can mean a lot of different things depending on who you are talking to. When one person says "gun control" they may be referring to laws that require gun owners to go through background checks, while another person could think of "gun control" as banning all firearms period.
Discussing Problems
Definitions
Definitions are Key!!!
Lack of clear definitions (or deliberate misrepresentation of definitions) is a huge contributor to the polarized storm of controversy that surrounds guns, gun control, and gun violence.
This presentation will explore this chaos and endeavor to analyze some of it in the hopes that the viewer may come away with the understanding that the first step towards solving any problem is to change the way we think about the said problem.
Just For Giggles :P
Types of Reasoning
Changing the way we think about problems involves dissecting the way we talk about problems. There are four main types of reasoning, here are some examples of them in action as they pertain to the issue of gun control.
This section also includes an example of how a Toulmin model works to identify the level of cogency an argument holds.
2. Types of Reasoning
Reasoning By Sign
My example of reasoning by sign comes from this link: https://www.sparkpeople.com/mypage_public_journal_individual.asp?blog_id=5027860
If you don't want to read the article, the author's argument is essentially this: Gun ownership is important because it levels the playing field. Guns are as lethal in the hands of the weak as in the hands of the strong. If guns are taken away, then when conflict must be settled by force, the young and strong have an unfair advantage.
This argument is an example of reasoning by sign.
Sign
Cogency
This argument is sign-reasoning because the author points to multiple reasons that support his position.
Here's some of the signs:
-Interaction is marked by only reason and force
-Guns level the playing field so that all must reason to avoid the use of force
-Banning guns leaves the public vulnerable to physically strong people with violent intentions
- Is the sign-reasoning cumulative?
- Yes, there are multiple signs.
- Is the relationship inherent?
- Yes, these factors are related.
- Are there factors that disrupt the relationship between variables?
- I would say yes--instances where one person has a gun and the other does not is certainly not an instance of a level playing field.
- Is there a relevant relationship between the variables?
- Yes, they all pertain to the issue of guns.
Cogency Continued
Cogency Cont.
I would say this argument is probably/certainly cogent as it pertains to guns in general.
The author believes people in general should have the right to guns in general--I think this argument still leaves room for reasonable restrictions.
Reasoning By Example
A very popular instance of reasoning by example is when people extrapolate that because Chicago has strict gun control but also has the worst gun violence, gun control does not work.
Example
Cogency
- Is the example relevant?
- This example is relevant; it pertains to guns and gun control.
- Are there a reasonable number of examples?
- This meme does not provide enough examples to prove reasonable.
- Are the examples typical?
- This example is not necessarily typical, you can check this article out to see for yourself: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence
- Are negative examples non-critical?
- I would argue that negative examples are critical.
This argument is not cogent; it lacks sufficient typical examples.
Reasoning by Analogy
Reasoning by analogy involves comparing two things/instances to determine what assumptions should be made or what action should be taken.
Analogy
Cogency
- Is the analogy literal and not figurative?
- This analogy (the comparison of securing dirt with a strap to gun control) is figurative.
- Are the points of similarity critical to the comparison?
- Yes.
- Are the points of difference non-critical to the comparison?
- No, the differences are critical. Piles of dirt and political institutions/laws (contrary to popular belief) are significantly different.
- Are there significant points of similarity?
- These things are similar in the regard that current gun control is viewed by some as woefully inadequate in the same way that restraining a pile of dirt with a strap is inadequate... But I guess that statement is colored by my personal bias. Others may interpret the image to imply that both gun control and putting a strap over dirt are inherently useless.
Reasoning By Cause
Cause
In a CQ Research At Issue article titled "Will wider availability of handguns increase public safety?" Gary Kleck argues yes. He says: "Gun availability among non-criminals tends to increase public safety." Kleck says "Gun ownership may also deter some criminals from even attempting some crimes in the first place" and that "the statistically strongest research indicates that higher overall gun levels have either no net effect on violent-crime rates or mind crime-reducing effects."
Cogency
- Is the alleged cause relevant to the effect described?
- Yes.
- Is this the sole or distinguishing causal factor?
- Not necessarily.
- Is the cause capable of producing effect?
- Yes. If I were a robber I would avoid robbing homes of gun owners.
- Is the cause sufficient?
- Yes.
Toulmin Model Example
Toulmin
According to an article we read in class, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The notion that firearms are the cause of people dying when some deranged person shoots them is as ludicrous as the notion that automobiles are the cause of people dying when drunk drivers hit them....In fact, guns save lives. Thousands of people every year stop criminals in their tracks with firearms. Intruders are shot or scared away, rapists are repelled and robbers are sent packing. In short, guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens act as a deterrent to crime."
Let's analyze this on the Toulmin model.
Toulmin
Toulmin
Grounds: Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens act as a deterrent to crime.
Warrant: People kill people.
Qualifier: ....maybe????
Claim: Guns save lives.
Rebuttal: There's probably at least a little hidden gem of cogency in this paragraph, but I can't find it because I'm super focused on the fact that this article states "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "Guns save lives" in the same paragraph. I think its true that in the right hands guns can be used for good, but I'm frustrated by this hypocrisy. If guns don't kill people, they can't save people either.
Fallacies
Here are some examples of false reasoning. Identifying false reasoning is invaluable to figuring out what solutions are worth trying and what are not.
3. Fallacies
Appeal to authority
This is an example of using an appeal to authority (in this case, a prominent religious figure) as a reason to promote gun control.
Authority
In this situation, I'm not analyzing the argument presented by President Nelson, I'm just pointing out that if someone were to promote gun control based solely on the fact that President Nelson supports it, they would be reaching conclusions through some shallow, shortcut reasoning.
Slippery Slope Argument/False Analogy
Arguing that gun control is a bad idea because Hitler took guns from Jews is a fallacy because 1) its a false analogy. Federally regulating guns more tightly is very different than systemically stripping a minority group of their intrinisc rights. 2, this is a slippery slope fallacy. Regulating guns isn't necessarily the first step to becoming a fascist dictatorship.
Slope/Analogy
Ad Hominem
This is an ad hominem fallacy because rather than attacking the argument that "no one needs an AR-15" the poster attacks the people posing the argument by calling them whiny little bitches.
Ad Hominem
False Analogy
Analogy
I would also like to propose that this poster is a false analogy as well as an ad hominem fallacy. "Whiny little bitches" are living breathing humans with inherent rights to life and liberty while AR-15s are inanimate objects entirely unneccessary to the survival of any law-abiding American citizen. Comparing AR-15s to whiny little bitches is fraught with error.
False Dilemma
A false dilemma is an argument that presents an issue as having only two sides. Gun owners can be victims too.
False Dilemma
This same type of fallacy could be applied as an anti-gun argument (and would be just as false that way too). Someone could argue "If you support the second amendment you support murder."
Yay
This one isn't a fallacy, this example directly works against the false dilemma fallacy. I just had to include it because I appreciate the fact that someone recognizes not everything is black and white.
Yay
Non Sequitur
Non Sequitur fallacies are fallacies that cite reasons unrelated to the claim as evidence. This has literally nothing to do with anything....Maybe its a cultural thing but I don't understand this at all....
Non Sequitur
Red Herring
A red herring fallacy is a fallacy that tries to draw attention to something other than the argumentative point. This post distracts from the fact that apparently 3300 children have been killed by semi-automatic rifles in the past decade by emphasizing how many "unborn children have been murdered by liberal women." This fallacy to distracts from the issue at hand by bringing up another emotionally charged topic.
Red Herring
references
CQ Researcher by CQ Press, library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/.
Google Images, Google, images.google.com/.
Beauchamp, Zack. “A Huge International Study of Gun Control Finds Strong Evidence That It Actually Works.” Vox.com, Vox Media, 6 Nov. 2017, www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence.
4. Sources
I got a lot of memes from google images...but here's a list of the sites they technically come from...
*
https://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf
https://historymaniacmegan.com/2015/09/18/worst-arguments-for-not-enacting-gun-control/
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3s7wh9
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/02/24/mormon-church-president-russell-nelson-laments-laws-that-allow-guns-to-go-to-people-who-shouldnt-have-them/
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/339443
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3q62ej
http://whisper.sh/whisper/053546e737beb74de810a6bc881620acd32b2d/Because-its-the-slippery-slope-Hitler-went-down-when-he-started-confis
https://www.teeshirtpalace.com/products/nobody-needs-an-ar-15-rifle-pro-gun-rights-poster
https://me.me/i/damn-right-im-pro-gun-look-at-history-your-choice-17452449
https://ifunny.co/picture/gLsTGhpw5
https://www.sparkpeople.com/mypage_public_journal_individual.asp?blog_id=5027860
https://blog.uwgb.edu/alltherage/debunking-pro-gun-arguments-but-what-about-chicago/