Article analysis and discussion

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)