Step One: Read, Annotate, and Clarify Your Passage
1.1 Annotation (underline topic sentences, circle and square as appropriate—
not shown here)
The government’s gun registration program has failed. It did
not stop the Dawson College shooting nor the two previous
rampages in Montreal. All three crimes were committed by
individuals using legally acquired weapons. More important,
recent statistics show that while the incidence of crime—
homicides, robbery—involving guns has decreased over the
past ten years in the United States, it has increased in Canada.
In the United States, not only is there no gun registry, but
citizens are actually being encouraged to carry guns. Twenty-
six states have recently passed laws allowing citizens to carry
handguns and have made it easier for them to get handgun
licences.
Not only has the gun registry program failed; it has had
the effect of a steamroller crushing a butterfly. The gun
registry program has two main functions: (1) to decrease the
use of guns for criminal activity, and (2) to reduce the number
of domestic murders because of easy access to guns. The
registry has had no effect on either of these.
Most crimes are committed with unregistered and illegal
handguns, often either stolen from individuals who have
registered their guns or with guns illegally imported from the
United States. A gun registry doesn’t address that problem.
Criminals will still get guns; law-abiding citizens won’t. In fact,
a gun registry can actually facilitate criminals getting guns
because it tells the criminals who has the guns and from where
they can be stolen.
Gun registry (GR) failed. a) It
did not stop crimes done with
legal guns (Montreal); b) it did
not prevent increase in crime
(US vs. Canada).
Moreover: GR failed in two
main functions: 1) decrease
use of guns in crime, 2)
reduce murders due to easy
access to guns.
Most crimes are done with
illegal guns (stolen or
smuggled). GR does not
address this (worse: tells
criminals where to steal guns.)
The gun registry, by itself, does not reduce the number
of domestic murders. The number is, first of all, already low.
And if someone is going to kill a spouse or other family
member, that person will use whatever is available. If guns
aren’t available, he or she will use knives or clubs. Registering
handguns will not change that.
Nor will it stop the killing of police officers. Few police
officers in Canada are killed with guns. And when they have
been, the guns have either been legally acquired, which the
gun registry does nothing to prevent, or they have been illegal,
which the gun registry also does nothing to prevent.
The gun registry is simply not effective. It should be
eliminated.
1.2 Statement of Topic and Position
Topic: Gun Registry
Issue: Should guns registry be eliminated?
Position: GR is ineffective; it should be eliminated.
1.3 Clarification Notes
1) “It did not stop the Dawson College shooting nor the two previous
rampages in Montreal.” Note: This includes a presupposition that gun
registry is supposed to eliminate all crimes rather than decrease them. This
is questionable.
2) “(2) to reduce the number of domestic murders because of easy access to
guns.” Note: The word “domestic” is semantically ambiguous : “done at
home” or “within the country”?
3) “Most crimes are committed with unregistered and illegal handguns, often
either stolen. Note: Vague–how often is “often”? How many is most (total
number)?
GR does not reduce domestic
murders:1) murders are low;
2) people who want to kill
family, will find the weapons.
GR will not stop killing of
police: 1) few are killed with
guns; 2) they were either
legal or stolen.
C: GR should be eliminated
4) “Criminals will still get guns; law-abiding citizens won’t.” Note: There seem
to be an implied normative claim that it is a bad thing if law-abiding citizens
don’t get guns. The claim is neither stated nor defended anywhere.
5) “The number is, first of all, already low.” Note: Vague—how low is “low”?
6) “Few police officers in Canada are killed with guns. “ Note: Vague—how
few is “few”?
(continue with the notes as appropriate….)
1.4 Synopsis
“Gun registry should be eliminated because it failed and it is ineffective in its
function. First, it failed because it does not prevent crime with legal guns or have
effect on crime rate. Second, it is ineffective in reducing guns for use in crime
because often such guns are acquired illegally, which it does not address. And it is
ineffective in reducing domestic murders because such people will always find
other weapons. Finally, it has no effect on crimes against the police since they are
done either with legal guns or illegal guns.
Step Two: Portray The Basic Argument Structure
2.1 Argument Structure
2.2 Argument Structure (arrow diagram)
Step 3: Assess the Arguments
3.1 Argument Analysis: Failure Argument
The argument line that argues that GR failed (2) has two
independent arguments that support it (3 and 5).
Summarise: Let’s consider premise 3 first: It claims that GR
failed because it failed to prevent crimes with legal weapons.
And it supports this by pointing out to three cases of rampages
with legal guns.
4. GR failed to prevent three rampages with legal gun
3. GR fails to prevent crimes with legal guns
Assess strength: This argument is an inductive generalization. The argument is
weak because its sample is very small (three crimes); it is not representative
(rampages and college shootings in Montreal); and observations are not
systematic.
Assess Claims: Are the claims themselves true? Was GR functioning at the time of
the rampages? Were they legal guns? No information is provided (have to
assume).
Challenge Claims: Does the argument make a presupposition that GR must
prevent all crimes with legal guns? GR is supposed to reduce crimes, not eliminate
them.
The argument line that argues that GR failed (2) has two
independent arguments that support it (3 and 5). Now, let’s
consider premise 5:
Summarise: The argument claims that GR fails by implying that
it has no effect on the crime rate. It is supported by the
statistics for Canada and US showing that US without registry
has decrease in crimes while Canada has an increase.
7. US has no registry, but crime is decreasing.
6. Canada has registry, but crime is increasing
5. GR has no effect on crime rate (implied).
Assess strength: This is a causal argument, denying a causal connection. The
argument is weak because it fails to take into account other factors that
contribute to crime rates. It is possible that crime rate would be much higher in
Canada without GR and much lower in US with GR. This would be strong if other
variables were controlled.
Assess Claims: Are the claims themselves true? Was GR in Canada functioning
during periods cited? We do not have enough information to assess the truth.
Challenge Claims: No claims to challenge here.
The Failure Argument is quite weak. It includes a weak
inductive generalization and a weak causal argument.
We have little information to check the truth of the
claims themselves. We have to rely on the author to
provide true claims, but without references to reliable
sources makes the case weaker.
3.2 Argument Analysis: Inefficiency Argument
The argument line that GR is ineffective basically
defines what effectiveness is and argues that GR
fails to live up to these conditions.
The argument line includes a number of deductive
arguments at the beginning and some inductive
arguments at the top.
Let’s look at the first step in the argument sub-
conclusion 8.
Summarise: The argument claims that GR is
ineffective because it does not decrease guns for
use in crimes and reduce domestic murders. The
argument is deductive (Modus ponens) but we
can translate it into categorical logic.
10. All GR are things that don’t reduce domestic
murders or guns …
11. All things that don’t reduce domestic murders
or guns are ineffective things
8. All GR are ineffective things.
Assess validity/strength: This deductive argument
is valid (note: for simplicity, A propositions were
used). The question is whether it is sound. Are the
claims true?
Assess Claims: We have to trust the author that
registry has two functions which define whether it
is effective (Pr. 11) The main question is whether
10 is true, for this we have to check how this
premise is supported.
How is premise 10 supported?
Premise 10 is basically a joining of two conclusions
(premises 12 and 15). We could check the validity
of joining, but this is not necessary (this is
conjunction inference in propositional logic).
Instead, lets look at the argument for premise 12.
Summarise: The argument claims that GR does
not decrease guns for use in crimes because most
crimes are made with stolen or smuggled guns
and GR does not prevent that.
13. Most crimes use stolen or smuggled guns
14. GR does not prevent stealing or smuggling of guns
12. GR does not decrease guns for use in crimes
Assess validity/strength: This argument can be put into a categorical form if we
add extra implied premises. But even now it is clear that it is invalid (provide a
Venn Diagram to illustrate this—not shown here). Premise 13 says that only some
crimes are done with stolen guns. So, even if GR did not prevent illegal guns, it
does not follow that it does not decrease availability of legal guns for use in
crimes. But this is what the conclusion states. Invalid.
Assess Claims: The claim 13 is too vague (how many are most)? Furthermore, no
support is given for premise 14. By reducing guns in general and guns in unreliable
hands, GR might reduce the number of guns that are likely to be stolen.
Premise 10 is supported with two premises, 12 and 15.
We have determined that premise 12, if stated in
unqualified form (i.e. GR does not reduce any guns for
crimes) is false. So, the argument fails, but we should
also look at premise 15.
Summarise: The argument claims that GR does not
reduce domestic murders because they are already low
and people will always find a weapon of opportunity.
16. Domestic murders are low
17. People who want to kill family, will find the weapons
15. GR does not reduce domestic murders
Assess validity/strength: This is an inductive argument (premises are not linked).
The basis for drawing the conclusion is unclear. Premise 16 appears irrelevant.
Premise 17 is a general unsupported claim (empirical prediction). The argument is
very weak.
Assess/Challenge Claims: Claim 16 is too vague and irrelevant to the conclusion—
the fact that domestic crimes are low does not mean they can’t or should not be
reduced. No evidence (systematic or anecdotal) is cited in support of premise17:
even is some people would find weapons of opportunity, without easily available
guns some might not. (Hasty Generalization).
Overall, the Inefficiency Argument is weak.
The main problems are related to the premises 12
and 15, which are supposed to lead to the
conclusion (10) that GR does not reduce guns
available for crimes or reduce domestic murders.
Claim 12 is derived from an invalid argument—
even if GR does not reduce illegal guns, it does not
mean it can’t prevent crimes with legal guns.
Moreover, no evidence is given to show that GR
does not reduce availability of guns for theft.
Claim 15 is largely unsupported. The main problem is with premise 17. It appears
to be a hasty generalization without clear sample. Claim 16 is irrelevant.
3.3 Argument Analysis: Overall Argument
The overall argument is weak. The argument that GR fails is based on hasty
generalization and weak causal argument. The argument that GR is ineffective is
based on an invalid argument and on another hasty generalization.
Finally, even if the arguments were strong, the conclusion that guns registry
should be eliminated does not follow. No argument had been provided to show
that it can’t be fixed (Challenging claim 9: Ineffective or failed programs should be
eliminated)
4.0 Step Four: Present Your Analysis
Write a page or page and a half summary of the article and your conclusions about its strength (relying
on results from step 3)
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more