Obi Wan
Regular Member
ah HA!
I found it!
The argument, "Having a gun increases the possibility that someone will get hurt.
If the gun were not there, nobody could get hurt by it."
commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii
(colloquially known as 'Begging the question').
Again, from wikipedia, "This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion
that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument,
often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.".
It's been mildly interesting to read the various responses, assumptions,
and proclamations made on this thread since I've been off searching for the answer.
So, I'll give a little back story.
On a recent outdoor trip with three friends,
a comment was made that one of my friends, Mike, was the only one not carrying.
This started a conversation about OC, applicable laws, etc.
Mike is not an anti; he has a loaded firearm at home,
and is not afraid to use it.
In his line of work, he deals with the aftermath of violent crime every few weeks.
During the conversation, Mike stated, as near as I can recall:
"I don't see why you need a gun out here.
Having a gun with you just increases the possibility that someone will get hurt.
If the gun were not here, nobody could get hurt by it."
I respect Mike a lot. He is a man of strength, good moral character, and courage.
But it bothered me that I couldn't come up with a decent response right away.
I wouldn't use the 'I'm offended' tactic, and neither would he in any of our discussions.
Several of you pointed out that the statement could not be argued with,
it was a useless statement, guns are inanimate objects, and that sometimes,
hurting people is not a bad thing.
Although all true, they did nothing to identify the fallacy.
gsx1138 called it a strawman fallacy.
As Grapeshot so eloquently stated, via a graphic,
that a strawman is an informal fallacy based upon
misrepresentation of an opponents position.
I don't see how that applies to the stated argument.
I believe he is incorrect in calling the argument a strawman fallacy.
It was SVG's simple reply that got me headed in the right direction:
"Ban stairs, having stairs in your house increases the chance a child will fall down them."
Mike has stairs in his home, and this made a lot of sense to me.
It pointed out the gist of the fallacy, and gave me enough info to chase down the name of it.
It is clearly a petitio principii fallacy.
This is important:
When I could put a name to it, I could find other examples of petitio principii,
which solidified that the argument was indeed,a fallacy.
It was dakatak87 who brought the real thought into focus:
"My wife has expressed her concern that the chances of an accident happening
in the house are greater than needing a firearm to protect yourself from someone."
What a honest, thought out, concern.
And this is something I can deal with.
I can propose the 'stairs' logic to Mike,
and I'm pretty sure I can get him to see the fallacy of it.
And I'm pretty sure I can propose the thought to Mike that I think what he's getting at is
the concept of "the chances of an accident happening (where ever) are greater
than needing a firearm to protect yourself".
That's an easy concept to deal with.
So, all that to say: "Thanks. I've got this now."
As a good friend of mine would say: "Helpful, you have been."
Obi Wan
I found it!
The argument, "Having a gun increases the possibility that someone will get hurt.
If the gun were not there, nobody could get hurt by it."
commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii
(colloquially known as 'Begging the question').
Again, from wikipedia, "This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion
that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument,
often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.".
It's been mildly interesting to read the various responses, assumptions,
and proclamations made on this thread since I've been off searching for the answer.
So, I'll give a little back story.
On a recent outdoor trip with three friends,
a comment was made that one of my friends, Mike, was the only one not carrying.
This started a conversation about OC, applicable laws, etc.
Mike is not an anti; he has a loaded firearm at home,
and is not afraid to use it.
In his line of work, he deals with the aftermath of violent crime every few weeks.
During the conversation, Mike stated, as near as I can recall:
"I don't see why you need a gun out here.
Having a gun with you just increases the possibility that someone will get hurt.
If the gun were not here, nobody could get hurt by it."
I respect Mike a lot. He is a man of strength, good moral character, and courage.
But it bothered me that I couldn't come up with a decent response right away.
I wouldn't use the 'I'm offended' tactic, and neither would he in any of our discussions.
Several of you pointed out that the statement could not be argued with,
it was a useless statement, guns are inanimate objects, and that sometimes,
hurting people is not a bad thing.
Although all true, they did nothing to identify the fallacy.
gsx1138 called it a strawman fallacy.
As Grapeshot so eloquently stated, via a graphic,
that a strawman is an informal fallacy based upon
misrepresentation of an opponents position.
I don't see how that applies to the stated argument.
I believe he is incorrect in calling the argument a strawman fallacy.
It was SVG's simple reply that got me headed in the right direction:
"Ban stairs, having stairs in your house increases the chance a child will fall down them."
Mike has stairs in his home, and this made a lot of sense to me.
It pointed out the gist of the fallacy, and gave me enough info to chase down the name of it.
It is clearly a petitio principii fallacy.
This is important:
When I could put a name to it, I could find other examples of petitio principii,
which solidified that the argument was indeed,a fallacy.
It was dakatak87 who brought the real thought into focus:
"My wife has expressed her concern that the chances of an accident happening
in the house are greater than needing a firearm to protect yourself from someone."
What a honest, thought out, concern.
And this is something I can deal with.
I can propose the 'stairs' logic to Mike,
and I'm pretty sure I can get him to see the fallacy of it.
And I'm pretty sure I can propose the thought to Mike that I think what he's getting at is
the concept of "the chances of an accident happening (where ever) are greater
than needing a firearm to protect yourself".
That's an easy concept to deal with.
So, all that to say: "Thanks. I've got this now."
As a good friend of mine would say: "Helpful, you have been."
Obi Wan