Yesterday a gun owner said to me, "It's the person that kills another person. The gun doesn't work unless a person pulls the trigger." There are lots of variations to this argument in favor of freedom to own weapons, and they are all intended to end all further debate. Now the claim by itself in logically rock solid. And I've always weighed that heavily when considering what we should do about gun violence, and find myself caught somewhere in the middle.
But yesterday after hearing the claim for the umpteenth time, I got to thinking. While the claim is solid logic, how does it actually relate to curbing gun violence? Does it actually address the issue? It's a solid claim but supports the right to own weapons using the fallacy of non-sequitur (DOES NOT FOLLOW). It goes like this:
Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.
Therefore, restricting guns does no good.
The non-sequitur occurs in line three, which doesn't follow the first two. It's a separate claim or a new premise in a separate argument. It may or may not be valid. It's implied, quite clearly in fact, but it cannot be derived from the first two claims, even though those separate claims may be self evident.
Does restricting gun ownership reduce violent crime? In science, theories are considered empirically valid through testing. But we have no data available to eimpirically test this theory, because we have never limited gun ownership. Both owning guns and restricting guns are purely ideological positions, and we don't know what happens if we use one or the other to solve the problem. And without having actual knowledge, we have a controversy, a stalemate, and we avoid the issue politically.