PHI 103 Final 
Final Project
Timothy Gillespie
PHI 103
Susan Smith
Jan 26 2015
For my final project I have chosen to use the arguments for banning guns. I do not agree with these arguments but, I will attempt to address their statements and provide a sound counter argument for each of their points that I discuss. During this final project I hope that I can help shed light on the subject for both sides of the argument and come to a common ground. I believe that is the point of making arguments and counter arguments. It is to get the issue out in the open and make sound decision, based in fact, that is the best possible out comes for both parties.
The first point that I will discuss is a statement that is made in the article. The statement is: Banning gun saves lives. Below that statement the author goes into some detail about how banning guns can save lives and uses the country of Australia as an example. The author stated this “Around 650,000 automatic and semi-automatic weapons were destroyed and a whole raft of checks and controls brought in. The end result? The first decade of the law alone saw a fifty-nine percent drop in Australian gun-homicides, while non-firearm-related homicides stayed level. In other words, people didn’t switch to machetes or poison so much as they stopped killing altogether. As for mass shootings: well, Australia’s gone all the way from eleven a decade (1986-96) to zero.” (Morris M 2013) Morris’s argument here uses the premises based of statistical facts. This argument is deductive because he uses facts to lead the reader to the conclusion that based off those facts it is a good idea to ban gun in order to save lives. I will now present my counter argument for this topic. The problem with he statement that banning guns saves lives is that it is a very broad statement thus making it easy for the author to support his statement. The next problem with this argument is that the author uses a specific place and time period in order to make
Timothy Gillespie
PHI 103
Susan Smith
Jan 26 2015
For my final project I have chosen to use the arguments for banning guns. I do not agree with these arguments but, I will attempt to address their statements and provide a sound counter argument for each of their points that I discuss. During this final project I hope that I can help shed light on the subject for both sides of the argument and come to a common ground. I believe that is the point of making arguments and counter arguments. It is to get the issue out in the open and make sound decision, based in fact, that is the best possible out comes for both parties.
The first point that I will discuss is a statement that is made in the article. The statement is: Banning gun saves lives. Below that statement the author goes into some detail about how banning guns can save lives and uses the country of Australia as an example. The author stated this “Around 650,000 automatic and semi-automatic weapons were destroyed and a whole raft of checks and controls brought in. The end result? The first decade of the law alone saw a fifty-nine percent drop in Australian gun-homicides, while non-firearm-related homicides stayed level. In other words, people didn’t switch to machetes or poison so much as they stopped killing altogether. As for mass shootings: well, Australia’s gone all the way from eleven a decade (1986-96) to zero.” (Morris M 2013) Morris’s argument here uses the premises based of statistical facts. This argument is deductive because he uses facts to lead the reader to the conclusion that based off those facts it is a good idea to ban gun in order to save lives. I will now present my counter argument for this topic. The problem with he statement that banning guns saves lives is that it is a very broad statement thus making it easy for the author to support his statement. The next problem with this argument is that the author uses a specific place and time period in order to make