Review The Following Videos

Review The Following Videosreview The Following Videosidentifying Pr

Review the following videos: "Identifying Premises and Conclusions," "What Is an Argument?," "What Is a Good Argument? (Part I)," and "What Is a Good Argument? : The Logic Condition." In this class, students learn to evaluate issues by analyzing reasoning strands from all sides objectively, assessing the evidence's quality and quantity. The process involves formulating a specific research question related to a chosen topic, conducting research from non-scholarly sources, and presenting reasoning from each side without bias. The analysis requires summarizing key points, presenting arguments in standard form, and evaluating reasoning quality—specifically, how well the research supports premises and how convincingly the reasoning supports conclusions. The final paper should be 600–1,000 words, double-spaced, APA formatted, and include a title page with the specified details.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The ongoing debate surrounding gun control in the United States remains a highly controversial yet critically important issue. Its implications for public safety, individual rights, and legislative policies make it a focal point for societal discussion. This paper aims to analyze arguments from both sides of the gun control debate by examining reasoning presented in non-scholarly sources, such as editorials, news articles, and opinion pieces. The specific research question addressed is: "Are universal background checks effective at reducing violent crime in America?" By exploring the reasoning on both sides, the paper seeks to evaluate the logical structure and evidentiary support of their respective arguments, fostering a clearer understanding of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in each position.

Presentation of an Argument from a Pro-Gun Control Source

One prominent source advocating for stricter gun control measures is an editorial from The New York Times titled "Background Checks and Gun Violence." The article argues that implementing universal background checks diminishes gun-related crimes by preventing prohibited individuals from acquiring firearms. The author's key points include the ineffectiveness of current background check laws, the high incidence of illegal gun sales, and statistical evidence linking comprehensive checks with reduced firearm deaths (Smith, 2021).

The main argument from this source can be summarized in standard form as follows:

Premise 1: Effective background checks prevent prohibited individuals from obtaining firearms.

Premise 2: Many gun crimes involve individuals who successfully bypass existing background checks.

Premise 3: Implementing universal background checks will significantly reduce illegal gun sales.

Conclusion: Therefore, universal background checks will reduce gun-related violence and related crimes.

The reasoning hinges on the assumption that preventive measures directly correlate with crime reduction and that the enforcement of universal checks will close existing gaps allowing illegal firearm transfers.

Evaluation of the Reasoning of the Pro-Gun Control Source

The reasoning in the "Background Checks and Gun Violence" article is compelling but warrants critical evaluation. The argument’s strength depends heavily on whether the premises are empirically supported, especially Premise 2, which claims that many gun crimes involve individuals who bypass background checks. Evidence from law enforcement agencies indicates that a significant percentage of illegal firearm transactions involve "private sales" or private transfers, often outside the scope of background check requirements (Siegel & Wintemute, 2018). However, the direct causal link between universal background checks and actual reductions in crime rates remains contentious due to confounding variables like enforcement intensity, cultural factors, and illegal firearm trafficking networks.

Furthermore, Premise 1 assumes that bans or restrictions effectively prevent prohibited individuals from obtaining firearms. According to a report by the CDC (2019), states with more comprehensive background check laws generally have lower firearm homicide rates, suggesting some validity. Nonetheless, critics argue that black market sales and straw purchases can undermine the effectiveness of background checks, making their preventative potential less absolute.

Regarding Premise 3, empirical data shows mixed results; while some jurisdictions with stricter background check laws report declines in firearm homicides, others observe minimal changes (Kellermann & Wintemute, 2018). The reasoning of the source is thus strong in principle but is limited by the complexity of causal factors and enforcement challenges.

Moreover, the argument assumes that implementation of universal background checks would be effectively enforced and cover all firearm transactions, including private sales. If enforcement gaps exist, the effectiveness may diminish. While the premises are reasonable and supported with some empirical evidence, the reasoning could be strengthened with more comprehensive data demonstrating the direct causality between universal background checks and reductions in gun violence.

Presentation of an Argument from an Anti-Gun Control Source

Contrarily, a commentary from The Wall Street Journal titled "The Case Against Universal Background Checks" presents a different perspective. The article argues that universal background checks are ineffective at reducing gun violence and may infringe on individual rights and freedoms. Its key points include concerns about the overreach of gun control laws, the difficulty of enforcing universal checks, and the evidence suggesting limited impact on violent crime rates (Johnson, 2020).

The main argument from this source can be summarized as:

Premise 1: Criminals and prohibited individuals often circumvent background checks through illegal means.

Premise 2: Universal background checks do not stop illegal firearm trafficking or straw purchases.

Premise 3: Existing evidence shows limited or no reduction in violent crimes following the implementation of universal background check laws.

Conclusion: Therefore, universal background checks are ineffective in reducing violent crime and may infringe on legal gun owners' rights.

This argument relies on the premise that illegal firearm markets are resilient to legal restrictions and that law-abiding citizens’ rights should not be compromised for marginal or unproven benefits.

Evaluation of the Reasoning of the Anti-Gun Control Source

The anti-gun control argument presents valid concerns about the limitations of universal background checks' effectiveness. Premise 1 is supported by law enforcement studies indicating that a significant percentage of illegal firearms are acquired through illegal channels, such as straw purchases or black markets (McGinty et al., 2019). Similarly, Premise 2 emphasizes enforcement challenges; even in jurisdictions with comprehensive laws, illegal trafficking persists, undermining the policies’ real-world efficacy.

However, the argument's weaker aspect lies in Premise 3, where it claims that existing evidence shows limited impact, but this evidence is mixed and context-dependent. For example, some states that introduced universal background check laws reported declines in firearm suicides and homicides (Kellerman et al., 2018), suggesting that the laws can be effective when properly enforced. Critics argue that the problem is enforcement and compliance rather than the laws themselves.

Furthermore, the premise regarding infringement on individual rights is an ethical and legal concern rooted in constitutional rights, particularly the Second Amendment (Legal Information Institute, 2021). While this premise is valid in the context of individual rights, it does not directly address the public health goal of reducing gun violence, creating a tension between rights and public safety.

In summary, the reasoning of the anti-gun control source highlights enforcement and circumvention issues but tends to overlook empirical evidence of law effectiveness in reducing specific types of violence. Its premises are logical within their context but may oversimplify the complexity of the issue by underestimating the potential benefits of comprehensive laws when combined with enforcement.

Conclusion

Analyzing the reasoning behind both sides of the gun control debate reveals that arguments are often grounded in empirical evidence, legal principles, and ethical considerations. The pro-gun control source emphasizes the potential for universal background checks to reduce firearm-related violence by preventing prohibited persons from obtaining guns, supported by data linking stricter laws with lower crime rates. Conversely, the anti-control source underscores enforcement difficulties and illegal markets' resilience, questioning whether laws alone can significantly reduce violence without addressing broader issues.

Both arguments demonstrate logical coherence within their premises, but their strength depends on the quality and scope of supporting evidence. Effective policy decisions should consider both the empirical evidence of law impact and the practical challenges of enforcement, recognizing that no single measure is a panacea. A balanced approach integrating strengthened background checks, enforcement, and addressing illegal trafficking, while safeguarding constitutional rights, is likely essential for meaningful progress in reducing gun violence.

References

Kellermann, A. L., & Wintemute, G. J. (2018). Youth Violence: A Critical Public Health Problem. American Journal of Public Health, 108(1), 11-13.

Kellerman, A. L., et al. (2018). The Effectiveness of State Firearm Laws: A Systematic Review. Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open, 3(2), e000253.

Legal Information Institute. (2021). Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

McGinty, J. C., et al. (2019). Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the USA, 1991–2016: A Systematic Review. The Lancet, 393(10168), 2269–2281.

Siegel, M., & Wintemute, G. J. (2018). Firearm Purchasing and Ownership in the United States: The Role of Legislation, Culture, and Context. American Journal of Public Health, 108(1), 13-15.

Smith, J. (2021). Background Checks and Gun Violence. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/15/opinion/background-checks-gun-violence.html

Johnson, R. (2020). The Case Against Universal Background Checks. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-against-universal-background-checks-11585078142