My friends, you will not be surprised to learn that I have continued to engage in dialogues about the ownership of guns. In a recent dialogue my friend argued that reducing gun ownership will not reduce murder rates as desired. I questioned him about this and helped him to formulate his argument more precisely. The first version of his argument took this form:
P1. (premise) If human nature is such that people will always seek to murder each other then reducing guns in society will not lower the murder rate
P2. (premise) Human nature is such that people will always seek to murder each other
C. (conclusion) Therefore, we should not reduce guns in society
But because the conclusion did not follow from the premises, we reformulated his argument as follows:
P1. (premise) If human nature is such that people will always seek to murder each other then reducing guns in society will not lower the murder rate
P2. (premise) Human nature is such that people will always seek to murder each other
C1. (conclusion) Therefore, reducing guns in society will not lower the murder rate
P3. (premise) If reducing guns in society will not lower the murder rate, then we should not reduce guns in society
C2. (conclusion) Therefore, we should not reduce guns in society
Although this version is valid, I was not convinced because I found premise number one to be questionable. As expressed in the argument, it seems to assume that human nature guarantees human action. I asked my friend to consider the following equivalent premise: if human nature is such that people will always seek to eat sugar then reducing the amount of candy available will not lower rates of sugar consumption. He agreed that this conditional is questionable.
Next, I asked him to consider this equivalent premise: If human nature is such that people will always seek to reproduce, then restricting the right to reproduce will not lower birth rates.
This premise can be shown to be false by looking at China as a counter example. I have been told by reliable people that in recent history the Chinese government placed restrictions on birth rates. This restriction succeeded in lowering birthrates despite human nature.
Despite showing the problem with premise one by demonstrating the problem with logically equivalent conditionals, my friend would not concede. He was committed to the truth of the consequent of the conditional (reducing guns in society will not lower the murder rate).
We then discussed premise two. I found this to be in need of support because I am not sure that our human nature is such that people will always seek to murder other people. So I asked if it is possible that this tendency is a result of social forces rather than biological forces. By the gods, I said, if it is a socialization issue, then removing weapons from people may well help. My friend was not willing to concede to my point and he lost patience with me. So we agreed to adjourn our dialogue.
The issue you moderns face regarding gun ownership is complex. My hope is that by following logic, our common master, you will one day resolve these questions.
-- Socrates
