Should we have gun control?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people

Question: Should we have gun control?
Position‹2 of 3›: Guns should not be restricted in any way
Argument1 of 3›: Guns don't kill people, people kill people

Automobiles kill more people every year than guns, but we don't talk about banning them.

The argument

Automobiles kill more people than guns and are just as dangerous in the hands of an irresponsible driver or an individual that wants to commit murder. That comparison is meant to test whether the case for gun control is really about public safety. Why, then, are people not talking about controlling or banning car ownership? If it was a matter of public safety, surely gun rights advocates would also be for restricting automobile ownership? The asymmetry is the point: two objects capable of killing, one of which kills more, and only one of which attracts calls for restriction. If danger alone justified regulating an item out of private hands, the argument for restricting vehicles would be the stronger of the two, and nobody makes it. The reason nobody makes it is that we already apply a different principle to cars, and it is the correct one. When a person mows someone down in a vehicle, that person is abusing the vehicle and using it for a purpose that it was not intended to be used. We respond by prosecuting the driver, not by treating every other driver as a prospective one. The same reasoning applies to firearms. When a person shoots someone with a gun, it is abusing the firearm in the sense that it is not using it for hunting, sport, or enjoyment, all of which are acceptable functions of a firearm. The misuse is a decision made by a person; the object performed exactly as it does in every lawful use. Consistency therefore requires locating responsibility in the same place in both cases. We shouldn't blame the tool or weapon in incidents of dangerous crimes — we should blame those that commit the crimes.

Context

In 2017, automobile deaths topped 40,000. Gun deaths in the same year were just under 40,000.

Premises

[P1]Tools like automobiles and firearms can be misused to kill, yet we restrict only those who misuse them, not the tools themselves. [P2] Guns, like cars, have legitimate uses such as hunting, sport, and enjoyment, and killings represent abuse of the tool rather than its intended function. [P3] Responsibility for violent crime lies with the person committing the act, not with the instrument they use. [C] Therefore, guns should not be restricted in any way.

Counter-arguments

We already restrict automobile ownership. We limit access to them. The government is constantly exploring and adopting legislation to make them safer, like seatbelts, speed limits, child safety seats, drink driver laws, laws against texting and driving, airbags and breathalysers. We also make sure that only people who have received adequate training and have passed a road test are allowed to use them. If guns were treated in the same way, where legislative efforts that would minimise gun deaths were embraced, then some form of gun control would be adopted. Also, it is worth bearing in mind that the percentage of the population that owns guns is much smaller than the percentage of the population that is driving a car. 90% of Americans drive a car, while barely a third of the population owns a gun. Considering both items kill around 40,000 Americans a year, that would indicate that guns are far more dangerous than cars. In fact, gun deaths are now exceeding the number of deaths from automobile accidents. We would expect cars to kill more than double the amount of people than guns as more than double the number of Americans own them. The very fact that the two numbers are close demonstrates just how dangerous guns are. Finally, we have to consider the function of both items. A car's primary function is a mode of transport to get passengers from point A to point B. As a result, almost every death caused by vehicles was an accident (around 94% of car deaths are accidental). By contrast, less than 2% of gun deaths are accidents. A gun's function is to kill, injure or maim, be it an animal or human. Therefore the comparison falls apart.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The two are unrelated. Cars are a mode of transport designed to move passengers. Guns are designed to kill, injure, and maim. [Rejecting P2] There are restrictions on car ownership. We make users pass a test before they are allowed on roads. [Rejecting P3] Guns should be subject to similar restrictions to make them safer.

Framing

- Everyone has complete control over their own choices. - If something causes people harm, this may be outweighed by its utility.