I don't know how to answer this issue...

Obi Wan · Mar 4, 2014

Sometimes in casual conversation, a person will state something similiar to the following:

Having a gun increases the possibility that someone will get hurt.
If the gun were not there, nobody could get hurt by it.

I know the usual cliches:
when seconds count, the police are only minutes away;
it's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need it and not have it;
that gun is not going to hurt anybody that doesnt need hurtin';

And I can address the CC vs OC issues/concerns.
(Thanks to all ya'll.)

Their point is that since a gun exists in the area,
it's technically possible that it could come out of the holster (how doesn't matter), and be fired.
If it were not there, that would not be possible.

Well.... yea... that's true.
I sure would like an intelligent, concise, logical answer.

Can anybody help?

Obi Wan

1245A Defender · Mar 4, 2014

Well,,,

Of ,, ten guns...
Only ,, one gun will be used to Threaten good people!
. Nine guns! will be used to protect good people!

golddigger14s · Mar 4, 2014

This is one of those "what if's" that can go on for a lifetime. What if I wasn't wearing a seat belt, what if I didn't have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen, what if I didn't get woken by my smoke detector? I know for my self I don't plan on shooting to kill, I have it available to shoot to live.

gsx1138 · Mar 4, 2014

There were no guns present in the recent attack in China. It didn't really seem to make a difference. Plenty of people still died. Fact is it's a strawman. Violence may happen at any time anywhere.

hovercat · Mar 4, 2014

Ask the questioner if they can imagine a place where only the authorities are allowed to have weapons of any kind. It IS real, and it does exist, right here in the good ol' USA! If all firearms were taken away we would be just as safe and secure as the folks who live there. It is called prison.

Obi Wan · Mar 4, 2014

From Wikipedia:

"A straw man... is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument."

and:

"An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support its proposed conclusion."

I guess I'm having trouble identifying the 'informal fallacy'.

Any help?

Obi Wan

davidmcbeth · Mar 4, 2014

It is a risk that the founding fathers understood...that the RKBA may result in unintended and intended deaths; however, the right is necessary for a free society. If one wishes to be safe...lock themselves up in a room and have no contact with others.

Grapeshot · Mar 4, 2014

Obi Wan said:
From Wikipedia:

"A straw man... is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument."

and:

"An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support its proposed conclusion."

I guess I'm having trouble identifying the 'informal fallacy'.

Any help?

Obi Wan

Would seem that on this thread, you are the "informal fallacy."

One may remove the tool (gun or knife) from the equation, but not the human element. Guns are inanimate - they do nothing by themselves.

Seriously, I have little patience for such games.

Rusty Young Man · Mar 4, 2014

Simple: Answer with "You've got a point. If you ever need to call the police because someone just broke into your home and is threatening your family with a knife, tell the dispatcher to ask the officers to leave their guns back at the station so nobody gets hurt when they arrive."

Let's see what their response is. If they mention something about "well, the bad guys might hurt somebody if the cops didn't bring their guns", you should reply with "but I thought you said guns hurt people?"

After that, they'll try to bring up the whole "training" thing, in which case you can point them to the many examples of police opening fire on suspects running through crowds, and managing to hit the suspect only three-ish times out of the 19 rounds that left their guns.

Long story short (in two sentences):
Yes, a gun increases the chances that A VIOLENT CRIMINAL WHO DECIDES TO ATTACK ME will get hurt.
A person who shouldn't be trusted to be safe with a gun probably isn't a safe person anyway.

Obi Wan · Mar 4, 2014

Grapeshot said:
Would seem that on this thread, you are the "informal fallacy."

One may remove the tool (gun or knife) from the equation, but not the human element. Guns are inanimate - they do nothing by themselves.

Seriously, I have little patience for such games.

Wow. A personal attack.
I certainly didn't expect that.

It is a valid question that has come up twice in my conversations in the last 2 months.
I thought that this would be a good forum to get some excellent, well thought out answers.
I guess I was wrong.
I apologize.

Obi Wan

Geerolla · Mar 4, 2014

Are they like this guy? Do they want to ban all the sharp things and chop off everyone's hands and feet so they can't beat anyone to death? Ask them those questions and I think they'll quickly realize how ridiculous they sound.

http://youtu.be/CNb34vPqrN0

Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Rusty Young Man · Mar 4, 2014

Obi Wan said:
From Wikipedia:

"A straw man... is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument."

and:

"An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support its proposed conclusion."

I guess I'm having trouble identifying the 'informal fallacy'.

Any help?

Obi Wan

The "straw man" is the argument "if guns didn't exist, people wouldn't die because of guns" when the true issue is "if some people didn't want to harm others, nobody would ever be a victim to these people."

Don't know too much about you, but it sounds as though Grapeshot has seen something in your other 7 posts (of which I did not find any in a simple search) which led him to believe your reasons for being here are not as sincere as they could be. It could also just be a misunderstanding.

Jered · Mar 4, 2014

How about this:

You seem to be basing the premise of your argument on the idea that someone getting injured is a bad thing. To the contrary, it is not. I believe that we all can agree that criminals committing crimes is a bad thing to happen in our society. A firearm can cause someone injury, yes, but, why is it a bad thing when a firearm causes someone injury? Remember the instance where the sheriff's deputies shot a man who fired at them? Was their shooting of him justifiable? If it was, then, obviously, you feel that the use of a firearm to stop a crime, even when it leads to injury can be justified. Yes, a firearm can inflict injury and suffering, but, what makes a particular example of injury and suffering moral? What makes inflicting injury and suffering justifiable? Is it justifiable for a criminal aggressor to inflict injury and suffering on his victim? Quite obviously, it is not. If a criminal aggressor suffers injury at the hands of those he would visit injury and suffering upon? Indeed it is, and to assume a position otherwise, to assert moral equivalence between aggressor and defender, to make criminals of those who defend themselves against predators who would make them prey, and then continue to hunt until stopped, that, truly, is the criminal action. To make a victim of an aggressor and a criminal of a defender is to deny that most fundamental of rights, the right to one's life. For, if one does not have the right to defend the fruits of one's labor, then one does not truly have the right to one's life. A firearm is merely a tool, albeit an effective one, perhaps the most effective tool to defend one's life.

A firearm serves as an equalizer. Anyone with the relatively small amount of dexterity and skill required to align a two pieces of metal, and then exert relatively modest pressure with a finger is an equal of anyone else. With a firearm, the elderly and weak are not at the mercy of the young and strong. The frightened citizen is not at the mercy of a hardened criminal. A firearm is a mark of liberty, bearing arms is the mark of a free man. During the Middle Ages, when Europe was ruled by those who could afford to spend time and money acquiring skill with arms, the Pope tried to ban the crossbow, and with the crossbow, a peasant could bring down the mightiest of knights. In the New World, many of the first efforts to restrict access to arms were out of fear of a slave revolt. In the United States, in the Jim Crow era, state governments made many efforts to restrict arms to keep them out of the hands of blacks. In Communist China, Chairman Mao said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Chairman Mao also orchestrated the murder of tens of millions of people.

What, then, does that tell you? It tells me that someone who wishes to deprive me of arms seeks to rob me of political power. He seeks to leave me at the mercy of those stronger than I am. In short, he seeks control over me. Why, then, should we allow that?

I hope that works. And go read this essay, by Marko Kloos.

This should work for any gun banner.

Citizen · Mar 4, 2014

A couple random thoughts.

Having a gun increases the possibility that someone will get hurt.
If the gun were not there, nobody could get hurt by it.

I think what it really boils down to is the fortitude/character/courage level of your commenter. That is to say, the whole reason you're getting that comment is because the commenter is unable to calmly contemplate violence. Its too scary for him, and he invents/gravitates to absurdities to make it go away.

So, if we use his namby-pamby attitude against him, we can calculate something like this: he's going to be taken aback if you act annoyedly insulted. Plenty of people can't really face giving offense--they get defensive, apologetic, etc. So, you just act insulted.

"Don't insult me! Who do you think you are!? You're saying I would use my defensive sidearm in a fit of pique to harm another human being! You're saying I'm equivalent to a criminal! Is it usually your method to insult strangers? To accuse them of being no better than common criminals? Well? WELL!?" Watch them backpedal.

Or, you could take another tack. You could just point out that the presence of a firearm is the not the determining factor, but the willingness to use it illegally for pride or manhood or whatever. Then gently coach them to think before adopting some saying. For example, there is a statistic flying around that doctors use. Something to the effect that you are "x" more likely to be shot if there is a firearm in the home. Rubbish. The factor is something more like, "You are "x" times more likely to be shot if there is a nut living in your home who has access to a firearm." Lots of homes have firearms where nobody got shot. The homes where somebody got shot were the homes where the husband came home early and found his wife with another man, or the adult son with mental problems went off the deep end, etc. It wasn't the mere presence of the firearm.

tombrewster421 · Mar 5, 2014

Jered said:
How about this:

You seem to be basing the premise of your argument on the idea that someone getting injured is a bad thing. To the contrary, it is not. I believe that we all can agree that criminals committing crimes is a bad thing to happen in our society. A firearm can cause someone injury, yes, but, why is it a bad thing when a firearm causes someone injury? Remember the instance where the sheriff's deputies shot a man who fired at them? Was their shooting of him justifiable? If it was, then, obviously, you feel that the use of a firearm to stop a crime, even when it leads to injury can be justified. Yes, a firearm can inflict injury and suffering, but, what makes a particular example of injury and suffering moral? What makes inflicting injury and suffering justifiable? Is it justifiable for a criminal aggressor to inflict injury and suffering on his victim? Quite obviously, it is not. If a criminal aggressor suffers injury at the hands of those he would visit injury and suffering upon? Indeed it is, and to assume a position otherwise, to assert moral equivalence between aggressor and defender, to make criminals of those who defend themselves against predators who would make them prey, and then continue to hunt until stopped, that, truly, is the criminal action. To make a victim of an aggressor and a criminal of a defender is to deny that most fundamental of rights, the right to one's life. For, if one does not have the right to defend the fruits of one's labor, then one does not truly have the right to one's life. A firearm is merely a tool, albeit an effective one, perhaps the most effective tool to defend one's life.

A firearm serves as an equalizer. Anyone with the relatively small amount of dexterity and skill required to align a two pieces of metal, and then exert relatively modest pressure with a finger is an equal of anyone else. With a firearm, the elderly and weak are not at the mercy of the young and strong. The frightened citizen is not at the mercy of a hardened criminal. A firearm is a mark of liberty, bearing arms is the mark of a free man. During the Middle Ages, when Europe was ruled by those who could afford to spend time and money acquiring skill with arms, the Pope tried to ban the crossbow, and with the crossbow, a peasant could bring down the mightiest of knights. In the New World, many of the first efforts to restrict access to arms were out of fear of a slave revolt. In the United States, in the Jim Crow era, state governments made many efforts to restrict arms to keep them out of the hands of blacks. In Communist China, Chairman Mao said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Chairman Mao also orchestrated the murder of tens of millions of people.

What, then, does that tell you? It tells me that someone who wishes to deprive me of arms seeks to rob me of political power. He seeks to leave me at the mercy of those stronger than I am. In short, he seeks control over me. Why, then, should we allow that?

I hope that works. And go read this essay, by Marko Kloos.

This should work for any gun banner.

Very excellent post sir.

Grapeshot · Mar 5, 2014

Obi Wan said:
Wow. A personal attack.
I certainly didn't expect that.

It is a valid question that has come up twice in my conversations in the last 2 months.
I thought that this would be a good forum to get some excellent, well thought out answers.
I guess I was wrong.
I apologize.

Obi Wan

You correctly define "strawman", yet state that you are having trouble identifying the 'informal fallacy'. Under the circumstances, that makes you the "strawman."

Don't see the question as valid at all because you present conditions that cannot coexist, but want answers as if they do.

There was no intent to insult or make a personal attack - I don't do that.

Obi Wan · Mar 5, 2014

Grapeshot said:
You correctly define "strawman", yet state that you are having trouble identifying the 'informal fallacy'. Under the circumstances, that makes you the "strawman."

Don't see the question as valid at all because you present conditions that cannot coexist, but want answers as if they do.

There was no intent to insult or make a personal attack - I don't do that.

Whatever...

OC for ME · Mar 5, 2014

Obi Wan said:
Sometimes in casual conversation, a person will state something similiar to the following:

Having a gun increases the possibility that someone will get hurt.
If the gun were not there, nobody could get hurt by it.

<snip>

False premise.

If a citizen does not have a gun, nobody will get hurt.
If a cop does not have a gun, nobody will get hurt.

Or

If a citizen has a gun, nobody will get hurt.
If a cop has a gun, nobody will get hurt.

Get it?

Grand Puba · Mar 5, 2014

Good guys with guns, will always be good guys.

Bad guys with guns, will always be bad guys.

GUNS, Dont know any better!
ONLY the BEARER knows HOW the gun, WILL, for evil, or SHOULD, for protection, be employed!

Difdi · Mar 5, 2014

Obi Wan said:
Having a gun increases the possibility that someone will get hurt.
If the gun were not there, nobody could get hurt by it.

Some anti-gun nuts seem to equate criminals getting hurt with the victims of criminals getting hurt. The more extreme nuts will put equal or greater value on the lives of criminal aggressors than they place on the lives of their victims. To that mindset, using a gun to stop a rape by killing the rapist is morally worse than the rape itself, since the victim wasn't killed.

Having a gun does increase the possibility that someone will get hurt. But so does having any other tool ever invented. Going by death rate statistics, cars are some thirty times more dangerous than guns, and the same argument about people getting hurt applies. Medical care is three times more dangerous than cars by the same measure.

Two things very few anti-gun nuts consider is WHO is getting hurt and how many people get hurt due to a lack of being able to defend themselves. Most anti-gun people who start studying the answers to those two unasked questions wind up pro-gun. John Lott is a good example of this.

I don't know how to answer this issue...

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member