Arguments Against Stricter Gun Control Laws

Paper 2 In recent times, topics of importance have risen to meet the eyes of a younger generation in hopes that they can initiate a change in society as well as the laws the may undermine those topics. In light of recent events concerning gun violence, the argument about the implementation of stricter gun control laws in America has sparked debate across the country and around the world. Those who advocate for stricter laws say that this will prevent gun-related crime in the United States. On the other hand, those who oppose it claim those stricter gun laws will increase crime. It was found that between 1993 and 2003, gun ownership increased by 56 percent, yet gun violence decreased by almost 50 percent (Centers for Disease Control). Even

The fallacy of exclusion is demonstrated in this claim. This argument is one in where important evidence that makes an inductive argument weaker is excluded from consideration. This argument given by the opposition is flawed because it merely assumes that stricter gun laws equal no crime. Just guns do not cause all crimes committed in the United States. Furthermore, gun laws already are in place yet criminals overlook those. The implementation of stricter gun laws will not terminate crime. Washington, D.C. has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet it is one of the most dangerous places in the country to live. Criminals that seek to harm others do not obey laws. Changing the laws of a country or the making of new ones does not get rid of the problem. Adding more rules and regulations could create larger problems that do not involve guns, but instead, other types of weapons. Essentially, this argument from those who support stricter gun laws in ineffective because it fails to include important details and explanations about what type of restrictions and laws are to be

This argument is an example of the fallacy of analogy. This fallacy consists in assuming that certain concepts that are alike in one area will be alike in another area. This argument is flawed because those who advocate for stricter gun laws fail to bring more information that speaks about the decrease or increase of homicide rates in a multiplicity of countries with different levels of gun control laws. Whatever the rates of homicide may be in one country may not be the same in another. Countries other than the United States may have stricter gun laws but may also have more crime. On the other hand, some may have less gun laws, yet may see a decrease in crime. Just because the stricter rules that are placed in one country may lead to a decrease in crime, it does not meant that the implementation of stricter laws in the United States will lead to prevention of crime. In essence, the claim presented by those who advocate stricter gun laws is rather weak because it fails to bring into consideration any data that speaks about the rates of homicide in other countries with different degrees of gun control