Frontpage
12-10-2009, 12:12 AM
http://230grain.com/images/articles/editorial.jpg
You're Paranoid
If you feel the need to carry a gun, you're paranoid and live in fear.
The above is an opinion sometimes expressed by those who don't carry a gun for self-defense. The assertion always bothered me--not just because even a nicely-phrased version of it is still a supercilious insult, but because something in the logic has always seemed a little off. At first glance, there's little in the statement worthy of objection beside the tone, so I always gave a mental shrug and conceded the point: "I suppose those who carry are more worried about needing to use it than those who don't carry, but it's not pathological." Unfortunately, the statement carries with it a number of assumptions that aren't reasonably conceded.
Before going any further, I should revisit the statement against which I'm railing and pare it down, lest I face accusations of making a strawman argument. At its most innocuous, the statement, "if you feel the need to carry a gun, you're paranoid and live in fear," can be reduced to "unless you are in immediate fear for your life, carrying a gun is not reasonable." I think this is a fair distillation of the various incarnations of the statement; in fact, we can derive accusations of paranoia from it: If it is reasonable to carry a gun when in fear for one's life, and an otherwise reasonable person carries a gun all the time, that must mean he is in constant fear of his life.
But that last sentence isn't logically correct given its context. The source of error is the most common logical mistake in the book: mixing up logical implication with a biconditional proposition. More commonly known as a post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy, this is where someone assumes that because a true condition implies a certain result, reversing the result also reverses the condition.
One example would be to say, "when I need bread, I go to the store." The condition (needing bread) implies the result (going to the store). If I don't go to store when I need bread, the statement is false; however, it's still true if I don't go to the store--as long as I don't need bread. It would also be false to assume that if I'm going to the store, it must be because I need bread. The overall statement is true when the premise and conclusion are both true, but this doesn't require the premise to be true when the conclusion is true.
But this is just what people assume when they call others paranoid for carrying concealed weapons. Their logical premise is something like this: "If I feared for my life, carrying a concealed weapon would seem like a good idea." Like the bread statement above, this is a logical implication. The first part (fearing for one's life) implies the second part (carrying a weapon appearing to be a good idea). But reversing the relationship between the parts does not logically follow from the premise. Those who accuse gun-toters of paranoia are making this assertion: "If I was afraid of being attacked, I'd want to carry a gun; therefore, if you want to carry a gun, you're afraid of being attacked." However, drawing that conclusion is no more logical than making the following statement: "Since you go to the store when you need bread, it means that if you're at the store you must need bread."
The post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy can even turn on the person who professes it. If someone can't or won't carry a weapon, then intentionally not worrying about being assaulted has an attractive symmetry to it. Unfortunately, this is the same sort of logical symmetry that leads a toddler to conclude that because he's covering his eyes with his hands and can't see you, you're not there. Symmetry is an aesthetic, not an heuristic.
The good news is that no matter where our reasoning leads us, members of the pro- and anti-concealed carry group both start from a common, indisputable premise. If flawed logic follows, it's most likely not due to inherent illogical tendencies, but due to a lack of information. If someone can't think of any reason to carry a weapon other than feeling threatened, then the illogic vanishes and it turns into an argument about the likelihood of needing a weapon for self-defense.
This is a bad argument to have--not just because it turns into a dispute about interpretation of statistics, but because most of the time carrying concealed weapons isn't a question of need, perceived or real. And if you don't expect to ever need to draw that gun holstered at your waist, you can hardly be paranoid for putting it there in the first place.
You're Paranoid
If you feel the need to carry a gun, you're paranoid and live in fear.
The above is an opinion sometimes expressed by those who don't carry a gun for self-defense. The assertion always bothered me--not just because even a nicely-phrased version of it is still a supercilious insult, but because something in the logic has always seemed a little off. At first glance, there's little in the statement worthy of objection beside the tone, so I always gave a mental shrug and conceded the point: "I suppose those who carry are more worried about needing to use it than those who don't carry, but it's not pathological." Unfortunately, the statement carries with it a number of assumptions that aren't reasonably conceded.
Before going any further, I should revisit the statement against which I'm railing and pare it down, lest I face accusations of making a strawman argument. At its most innocuous, the statement, "if you feel the need to carry a gun, you're paranoid and live in fear," can be reduced to "unless you are in immediate fear for your life, carrying a gun is not reasonable." I think this is a fair distillation of the various incarnations of the statement; in fact, we can derive accusations of paranoia from it: If it is reasonable to carry a gun when in fear for one's life, and an otherwise reasonable person carries a gun all the time, that must mean he is in constant fear of his life.
But that last sentence isn't logically correct given its context. The source of error is the most common logical mistake in the book: mixing up logical implication with a biconditional proposition. More commonly known as a post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy, this is where someone assumes that because a true condition implies a certain result, reversing the result also reverses the condition.
One example would be to say, "when I need bread, I go to the store." The condition (needing bread) implies the result (going to the store). If I don't go to store when I need bread, the statement is false; however, it's still true if I don't go to the store--as long as I don't need bread. It would also be false to assume that if I'm going to the store, it must be because I need bread. The overall statement is true when the premise and conclusion are both true, but this doesn't require the premise to be true when the conclusion is true.
But this is just what people assume when they call others paranoid for carrying concealed weapons. Their logical premise is something like this: "If I feared for my life, carrying a concealed weapon would seem like a good idea." Like the bread statement above, this is a logical implication. The first part (fearing for one's life) implies the second part (carrying a weapon appearing to be a good idea). But reversing the relationship between the parts does not logically follow from the premise. Those who accuse gun-toters of paranoia are making this assertion: "If I was afraid of being attacked, I'd want to carry a gun; therefore, if you want to carry a gun, you're afraid of being attacked." However, drawing that conclusion is no more logical than making the following statement: "Since you go to the store when you need bread, it means that if you're at the store you must need bread."
The post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy can even turn on the person who professes it. If someone can't or won't carry a weapon, then intentionally not worrying about being assaulted has an attractive symmetry to it. Unfortunately, this is the same sort of logical symmetry that leads a toddler to conclude that because he's covering his eyes with his hands and can't see you, you're not there. Symmetry is an aesthetic, not an heuristic.
The good news is that no matter where our reasoning leads us, members of the pro- and anti-concealed carry group both start from a common, indisputable premise. If flawed logic follows, it's most likely not due to inherent illogical tendencies, but due to a lack of information. If someone can't think of any reason to carry a weapon other than feeling threatened, then the illogic vanishes and it turns into an argument about the likelihood of needing a weapon for self-defense.
This is a bad argument to have--not just because it turns into a dispute about interpretation of statistics, but because most of the time carrying concealed weapons isn't a question of need, perceived or real. And if you don't expect to ever need to draw that gun holstered at your waist, you can hardly be paranoid for putting it there in the first place.