The Argument:
P 1. Humans have a right to self-defense from lethal harm. P2. The. If humans have a right to self-defense from lethal harm, then we have the right to own guns. P3. The. If humans have the right to own guns, then the government can’t ban guns.
C. It is wrong for the government to ban guns.
See the next page for initial support for each premise.
Initial Support: P1: It’s human nature to try and defend oneself if one feels threatened by another person, is it not? In most cases, when a person feels their life is endangered, they will try to defend themselves with a weapon or firearm against the person that is threatening them. It’s natural to take a defensive stand for yourself because of the instinct that …show more content…
There are also legal systems outside of the United States that recognize the right to self-defense. These laws exist that allow the use of lethal force, in scenarios where a person's life is being threatened. Utilitarianism can also support this premise, as it would often support the right to self-defense. Protecting one's own life is morally right in its understanding as well.
P2: Humans are given the right to own guns in the sense of self-defense. Then we have the right to own guns. Due to the efficiency of guns, they are widely used as a means of self-defense against lethal threats. Meaning a person is provided with a means to stop threats from a farther distance, which can be very important in life-threatening situations. Guns also provide a person with equivalent strength to fight against a larger group of people, or because they are weaker than the person threatening them. Without the right to own these firearms, the person who is being threatened will be at a significant