Jump to content


Photo

of gun control, logic, paint, and corners


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
2 replies to this topic

#1 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,772 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 05 August 2009 - 11:52 AM

In reading the reactions to the recent murders at that Pittsburg-area health club, it really has dawned on me that the gun control groups have employed circular logic and in so doing, really painted themselves into a corner.

For example, they are using the recent example to demonstrate that "law-abiding" gun owners go on murderous rampages. In other words, gun owners cannot be trusted to act lawfully.

OK. Then consider the recent concealed carry reciprocity issue. Their argument there was that carry permit holders go on murderous rampages. According to their arguments, background checks and training, etc. are not enough, and in other words, licensed gun owners cannot be trusted to act lawfully.

So then that gets us to issues regarding guns in the hands of military and police. I doubt that even most gun controllers will try to disarm the police and military. But there are plenty of examples of police and military members going on murderous rampages. So by their logic, military and police ALSO cannot be trusted to act lawfully.


This reasoning is circular ... it is, of course "whatever argument works at the time is the best one." This type of logic is analagous, in a way, to the "Argument from First Cause" (think Plato and Aristotle). That argument posits generally that everything must have a cause ... everything but the First Cause, that is. This has often been used to argue for the existence of God (God is the first cause and the only first cause). But the logical problem is that God must have had a cause. Bertrand Russell wrote extensively on this problem. Basically, the conundrum is that we can't objectively identify the First Cause. So, based on logic at least, we are forced to assume there isn't one.

The gun control / First Cause analogy then regards just who is "trustworth enough" to possess arms? The gun control people might argue that it's the police and military ... they are the only ones qualified to have guns. But that's illogical ... why them, when they too are human and capable of committing unlawful violence? There simply is no logical end-point to this issue (and that confirms the existence of slippery slopes). We all know it's impossible to eliminate guns from the face of the earth, just like we all know fire cannot be "uninvented." That said, this is a question of lines and slopes.

Because it is illogical to argue that no one can have guns, and because it is illogical to argue that just SOME people should have guns, it is more logical to conclude that ALL people have the right to arms. The other arguments are simply arbitrary ... and that arbitraryness is analogous to the fallacy of the Argument from First Cause.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#2 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Members
  • 9,346 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 05 August 2009 - 12:06 PM

In reading the reactions to the recent murders at that Pittsburg-area health club, it really has dawned on me that the gun control groups have employed circular logic and in so doing, really painted themselves into a corner.

For example, they are using the recent example to demonstrate that "law-abiding" gun owners go on murderous rampages. In other words, gun owners cannot be trusted to act lawfully.

OK. Then consider the recent concealed carry reciprocity issue. Their argument there was that carry permit holders go on murderous rampages. According to their arguments, background checks and training, etc. are not enough, and in other words, licensed gun owners cannot be trusted to act lawfully.

So then that gets us to issues regarding guns in the hands of military and police. I doubt that even most gun controllers will try to disarm the police and military. But there are plenty of examples of police and military members going on murderous rampages. So by their logic, military and police ALSO cannot be trusted to act lawfully.


This reasoning is circular ... it is, of course "whatever argument works at the time is the best one." This type of logic is analagous, in a way, to the "Argument from First Cause" (think Plato and Aristotle). That argument posits generally that everything must have a cause ... everything but the First Cause, that is. This has often been used to argue for the existence of God (God is the first cause and the only first cause). But the logical problem is that God must have had a cause. Bertrand Russell wrote extensively on this problem. Basically, the conundrum is that we can't objectively identify the First Cause. So, based on logic at least, we are forced to assume there isn't one.

The gun control / First Cause analogy then regards just who is "trustworth enough" to possess arms? The gun control people might argue that it's the police and military ... they are the only ones qualified to have guns. But that's illogical ... why them, when they too are human and capable of committing unlawful violence? There simply is no logical end-point to this issue (and that confirms the existence of slippery slopes). We all know it's impossible to eliminate guns from the face of the earth, just like we all know fire cannot be "uninvented." That said, this is a question of lines and slopes.

Because it is illogical to argue that no one can have guns, and because it is illogical to argue that just SOME people should have guns, it is more logical to conclude that ALL people have the right to arms. The other arguments are simply arbitrary ... and that arbitraryness is analogous to the fallacy of the Argument from First Cause.


The problem is that they don't make their arguments from a logical perspective. You can't engage them using logic and make an argument that John Q Public can relate to.

I had this confirmed over the weekend at my family reunion in Oregon. I had family there from Northern California and Washington (Oregon is a meet in the middle place). Really a bunch of extremely left thinkers. Some so left that we were in agreement that Obama is a terrible President. Some so left that they agree that the government shouldn't have a monopoly of force. However, folks like my mother that think any law that might reduce the number of guns extant is a good thing. No logic level exists large enough to shift that boulder.

Unfortunately I thought of a question I should have asked them with respect to their unwavering support for nationalized healthcare. Since several of them benefit from medical marijuana I wonder if they have considered the ramifications of national healthcare on those prescriptions. Those prescriptions are based upon the fact that their state allows it in defiance of federal law. I think this potential states' rights battle will be an interesting analogy to the existing battle with respect to firearms being pushed by Montana, etc. But I digress.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#3 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,772 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 05 August 2009 - 02:04 PM

The problem is that they don't make their arguments from a logical perspective. You can't engage them using logic and make an argument that John Q Public can relate to.


I quite understand that. Quite.

But on my own, personal level, logic is important to ME and important toward fulfilling my grasp of the issues at hand and in play.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872