Frontpage
04-20-2010, 11:35 AM
http://230grain.com/images/articles/editorial.jpg
I stumbled across this article on the Gun Guys blog (http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2546) while searching for videos of guns being used to blow things up. Those of you with a functioning limbic system will recognize gunguys.com as an anti-gun blog. Technically, it's a project of the Freedom States Alliance, whose stated purpose is "reducing gun violence in America." Apparently, the foregone conclusion is that this is accomplished via stricter gun control and opposing the liberalization of gun laws.
The linked article is noteworthy primarily for its histrionic title, which is iconic of the sort of hand-wringing emotionality that passes for anti-gun arguments. What really caught my attention, though, was this link inside the article: The Flawed Logic that Concealed Guns Would Stop Another VA Tech or 9/11 (http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2472).
On the face of it, this is an easy argument for them to win. It's impossible to prove a negative; supporting concealed carry as a preventative or mitigating mechanism against massacres is tough because all massacres that have been prevented by someone with a gun have never occurred, and there's no way to tell how many people a spree killer would have killed if he hadn't been stopped. For this reason, it's impossible to prove that the lives saved by increased concealed carry would be greater than those lost by increasing the statistically tiny percentage of people wrongly killed by licensed concealed carriers. Deaths that never happened can't be documented, but lives lost are easy to sum up.
This is the logical argument against concealed guns stopping a VT-style shooting, and I'm making it for two reasons: First, we believe our stance to be based on logic and reason, and therefore have nothing to lose and everything to gain by discussing the issue logically and rationally. More relevantly, though, I wanted to show how one logically disputes the assertion that widespread concealed carry would reduce the instances of public killings.
Now, with that in mind, look at how the Gun Guys make their argument. I don't like deconstructions that turn into a one-sided, screaming fit against the original text, so I tried to keep things mostly forensic.
"More gun control dangerous" said an editorial from "Red & Black", the student paper of the University of Georgia written by Matt Brandenburgh.
Really? Gun control is what is so dangerous? Not our heavily armed society with gaping loose gun laws and loopholes, but "gun control" is the danger?
The italicized area asserts the following:
Our society is heavily armed.
Gun laws are loose and full of loopholes.
Gun control is not a danger.
The technique of a rhetorical question is used so that none of these points are baldly asserted, which would either require justification or make the absence of arguments in their favor conspicuous.
The fact that virtually anybody can get their hands on an entire arsenal of military style weapons whether it be semi-automatic assault weapons or .50 caliber sniper rifles or simply the sheer ease of getting a deadly handgun and carrying it concealed anywhere in public including hospitals, daycare centers and churches in many states, still doesn't register with Brandenburgh.
Note how the topic veers: "...an entire arsenal of [weapons] whether it be [assault weapons] or [sniper rifles] or [the ease of getting and carrying a handgun]." I hate to pick on grammar because everyone makes mistakes, but this isn't just grammar or spelling: The subject changes in the middle of the sentence. Either the writer thinks that "the sheer ease of getting a deadly handgun and carrying it concealed anywhere in public including hospitals, daycare centers and churches in many states" is a noun like "weapons" or "rifles", or he didn't keep track of what he was saying.
Then there are the various rhetorical techniques in use: It's not a handgun, but a "deadly handgun" and the places the author chooses to point out that it can be carried are hospitals, daycare centers, and churches--all locations that carry emotional significance for most readers. It may not be intentional, but calling the handgun "deadly" before mentioning those locations is not coincidental. Something is deadly due to its effect; by calling the gun deadly, the author inserts a sort of "dangling deadly" that grounds out on the day care, church, or hospital: We are meant to imagine a deadly effect caused by someone with a gun in these locations.
(Note that I'm not implying the author is intentionally attempting to produce this manipulation; the general level of erudition and thought displayed by the article makes such sophistication highly unlikely. Instead, I think the author's thinking and unstated associations are being revealed by his writing.)
Finally, there's this last little bit: "...still doesn't register with Brandenburgh." The points in the preceding paragraph are presented not as theses, but as axioms whose truths have been abundently demonstrated. The article is being shaped not as a debate of Brandenburgh's points, but a prima facie acceptance of the author's implicit assumptions about the subject and how Brandenburgh's article doesn't match them.
Brandenburgh even acknowledges that "I'm no lover of guns. My family never has owned one, and I've never even held one in my hand. I suppose I'll buy one when I'm older, partly for self-defense and partly just to exercise my right."
Brandenburgh buys into the utterly simplistic notion that if you have a gun you can shoot the bad guy, whether it be one of the September 11th hijackers or a school shooter like Seung-Hui Cho who massacred 32 students and professors at Virginia Tech.
There's nothing particularly subtle about this section of text: The author is putting words in Brandenburgh's mouth in order to create a straw man whose nonexistent assertion will be attacked.
Never mind that such acts of "terror" are not the norm, and in fact far from it, to necessitate everyone and their mother walking around with a deadly handgun.
I don't understand why "terror" gets scare quotes, but of greater interest is yet more syntactic mangling. Here's the condensed sentence: "Such acts are not the norm...to necessitate walking around with a gun." This structure is technically correct if using unconventional meanings of the words, but isn't natural for English. A more likely explanation is that, like above, the structure of the sentence shifts in the middle as the author changed focus.
And what did he change focus to? "...everyone and their mother walking around with a deadly handgun." I'm giving him a walk on the pronoun mismatch, because everyone and their mother does that nowadays. However, note the hyperbole and framing: The opposing argument must justify everyone carrying a "deadly handgun."
Finally, this section has yet another use of throwaway phrasing meant to imply that its assertions are already established: "Nevermind that..."
Mr. Brandenburgh's extremist views are the real "danger". Certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when writers, especially students, peddle such misguided and deadly views such as advocating for colleges to allow deadly handguns inside classrooms and student dorms, it is important to challenge them.
Brandenburgh's views are characterized as "misguided and deadly", but this is perfectly acceptable if the characterization is supported later on. What's notable here is the repetition of the exact technique used above, where the phrase "deadly handguns" is used next to an explicit enumeration of locations where they could be located.
For starters, let's just call a spade a spade: Individuals carrying guns on a commercial airplane, are you kidding? It's laughable, but yet many gun supporters actually take the idea seriously. There's simply no end to their extremist ideology.
This isn't even an argument. It isn't discussed further until several paragraphs down, which lends the article a random and incoherent tone.
Remember the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City? You might recall that gun radicals wanted to be able to carry their concealed handguns into Olympic events -- I guess, as Brandenburgh would have it, to "shoot the bad guy." (Never mind that we still don't know who's a bad guy and who's not -- we'll just know when the shooting starts).
I'm not sure what the author is trying to say in the italicized section. Is he trying to sarcastically dismiss the ability to determine that someone is a "bad guy" by the fact that he's gunning down people? Is he trying to suggest that concealed-carry is useless unless it allows somone to "shoot the bad guy" before he starts killing people?
Again, the idea of allowing guns on airplanes is completely ridiculous, as is the notion of guns in our schools and daycares. But let's analyze this for a second.
There is a logistical nightmare of how you determine which gun owners are "responsible" enough to carry a gun on a plane and which ones aren't. Hint: I bet gun guys would allow white guys to carry guns on planes but not air travelers of different skin color or ethnicity. How would you know who is "responsible" if you didn't implement a national registration and licensing system for each gun owner? Hmmm...
First, the italicized section is a gross and offensive ad hominem attack against gun owners.
On a more subtle note, there are a couple statements slipped into the second paragraph in such a way to not appear as assertions requiring justification: Determination of responsibility should precede allowing a certain action, and the determination of responsibility could only be achieved via a national registration and licensing system.
Would gun toting air travelers have weapons on their hips? Or would gun guys have to at least put their guns in a bag or locked container? And if the gun is locked, how would you access it in time and be able to effectively halt a hijacking without causing a chain of events that could turn an airplane into a fireball in mid-air?
The second hypothetical question posed by the author is a straw man argument whose apparent purpose is to present the imagery of an airplane turning "into a fireball in mid-air..." The author's assault on his straw man implies that there is an insurmountable burden of proof for how a gun may be accessed in time to prevent a hijacking--but apparently there is no burden of proof for how gunplay on an airplane causes it to explode in midair. This makes the next paragraph unintentionally hilarious:
Such logistics are simply not something gun enthusiasts ever consider. They fail to think about the endgame.
This should be a canonical example of the pot calling the kettle black.
The same goes for college students who want to pack concealed handguns in college classrooms and dorms -- because lord knows that college students are always responsible and never drink.
Sarcasm is again used to treat student irresponsibility with guns as a fait accompli instead of stating that students will be irresponsible and tragedies will occur--both of which can be argued or directly addressed. It's likely this is not an intentional rhetorical technique, but its offhand nature reflects a lack of examination by the author.
Considering that gun supporters oppose locking guns up, would college professors and students have guns on their hips? If the guns were locked, would graduate teaching fellows (GTF's) also have a key to access the gun? Considering that Cho fired 120 rounds in a matter of minutes, could a professor or teacher react quickly enough and effectively enough -- more on that below -- to halt the attack? Put aside the immorality of guns in classrooms, the logistics do matter.
Both the strawman technique and argument are identical to the airplane example used above. Even the last sentence corresponds to the last paragraph of the airplane article. Here's a side-by-side comparison:
Would gun toting air travelers have weapons on their hips?
...would college professors and students have guns on their hips?
Or would gun guys have to at least put their guns in a bag or locked container?
If the guns were locked, would graduate teaching fellows (GTF's) also have a key to access the gun?
And if the gun is locked, how would you access it in time and be able to effectively halt a hijacking...?
...could a professor or teacher react quickly enough and effectively enough -- more on that below -- to halt the attack?
Such logistics are simply not something gun enthusiasts ever consider.
Put aside the immorality of guns in classrooms, the logistics do matter.
The repetition of the argument is almost rote, and it looks like the author is not even aware of it. The two examples provide a great opportunity to tie together the logistics of responding to a massacre to the assumed safety requirements; this would dovetail very nicely with the author's discussion on the ability of someone carrying a gun to respond to the threat. I hate to assume the worst of another, but it really looks like the author doesn't even examine his own stances enough to recognize that he's repeating himself.
Finally, we can't pass up this little gem:
Put aside the immorality of guns in classrooms, the logistics do matter.
What makes guns in classrooms immoral? It's never explained or justified against any ethos.
What gun guys will say -- and believe -- is that because they know for sure, in their guts, they could stop an attack with a gun, then it must be so, despite all the evidence that says otherwise.
This is another ad hom statement with no justification.
The most definitive resource to refute misguided ideas such as Brandenburgh's is "Unintended Consequences: Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-Defense" by the Violence Policy Center.
The VPC is an anti-gun organization; quoting them for an anti-gun argument is about as credible as quoting the NRA for a pro-gun statement.
The article cites a section from the "Unintended Consequences" article. All quotes are taken out of context. However, the use of one quote is interesting:
"A handgun is the hardest firearm to shoot accurately, and, even when you hit what you are shooting at, your target doesn't vaporize in a red mist like on television." (Unintended Consequences, p. 5)
This is used as an argument against concealed-carry, but apparently doesn't apply to spree killers, which further supports the theory that the author does not examine his own stances: Why else would he use a quote that works against his thesis? It's as if his understanding of an argument's applicability is limited to its immediate context: The article he quotes is against concealed carry, therefore this quote only concerns concealed carry.
An alternate explanation is that the author is not addressing the application of the quote to his own stances because it would undermine them and he will not or cannot defend them.
Guns in college classrooms or on airplanes don't work for self-defense, not just because "we say so", but because GunGuys.com believes in commonsense, pragmatic solutions based on evidence.
It's worth noting at this point that the article did not use even one non-fallacious argument or cite any evidence from a non-biased source. It is either an attempt to persuade people the author considers stupid, or the product of a dogmatic, disorganized, and uncritical mind.
I stumbled across this article on the Gun Guys blog (http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2546) while searching for videos of guns being used to blow things up. Those of you with a functioning limbic system will recognize gunguys.com as an anti-gun blog. Technically, it's a project of the Freedom States Alliance, whose stated purpose is "reducing gun violence in America." Apparently, the foregone conclusion is that this is accomplished via stricter gun control and opposing the liberalization of gun laws.
The linked article is noteworthy primarily for its histrionic title, which is iconic of the sort of hand-wringing emotionality that passes for anti-gun arguments. What really caught my attention, though, was this link inside the article: The Flawed Logic that Concealed Guns Would Stop Another VA Tech or 9/11 (http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2472).
On the face of it, this is an easy argument for them to win. It's impossible to prove a negative; supporting concealed carry as a preventative or mitigating mechanism against massacres is tough because all massacres that have been prevented by someone with a gun have never occurred, and there's no way to tell how many people a spree killer would have killed if he hadn't been stopped. For this reason, it's impossible to prove that the lives saved by increased concealed carry would be greater than those lost by increasing the statistically tiny percentage of people wrongly killed by licensed concealed carriers. Deaths that never happened can't be documented, but lives lost are easy to sum up.
This is the logical argument against concealed guns stopping a VT-style shooting, and I'm making it for two reasons: First, we believe our stance to be based on logic and reason, and therefore have nothing to lose and everything to gain by discussing the issue logically and rationally. More relevantly, though, I wanted to show how one logically disputes the assertion that widespread concealed carry would reduce the instances of public killings.
Now, with that in mind, look at how the Gun Guys make their argument. I don't like deconstructions that turn into a one-sided, screaming fit against the original text, so I tried to keep things mostly forensic.
"More gun control dangerous" said an editorial from "Red & Black", the student paper of the University of Georgia written by Matt Brandenburgh.
Really? Gun control is what is so dangerous? Not our heavily armed society with gaping loose gun laws and loopholes, but "gun control" is the danger?
The italicized area asserts the following:
Our society is heavily armed.
Gun laws are loose and full of loopholes.
Gun control is not a danger.
The technique of a rhetorical question is used so that none of these points are baldly asserted, which would either require justification or make the absence of arguments in their favor conspicuous.
The fact that virtually anybody can get their hands on an entire arsenal of military style weapons whether it be semi-automatic assault weapons or .50 caliber sniper rifles or simply the sheer ease of getting a deadly handgun and carrying it concealed anywhere in public including hospitals, daycare centers and churches in many states, still doesn't register with Brandenburgh.
Note how the topic veers: "...an entire arsenal of [weapons] whether it be [assault weapons] or [sniper rifles] or [the ease of getting and carrying a handgun]." I hate to pick on grammar because everyone makes mistakes, but this isn't just grammar or spelling: The subject changes in the middle of the sentence. Either the writer thinks that "the sheer ease of getting a deadly handgun and carrying it concealed anywhere in public including hospitals, daycare centers and churches in many states" is a noun like "weapons" or "rifles", or he didn't keep track of what he was saying.
Then there are the various rhetorical techniques in use: It's not a handgun, but a "deadly handgun" and the places the author chooses to point out that it can be carried are hospitals, daycare centers, and churches--all locations that carry emotional significance for most readers. It may not be intentional, but calling the handgun "deadly" before mentioning those locations is not coincidental. Something is deadly due to its effect; by calling the gun deadly, the author inserts a sort of "dangling deadly" that grounds out on the day care, church, or hospital: We are meant to imagine a deadly effect caused by someone with a gun in these locations.
(Note that I'm not implying the author is intentionally attempting to produce this manipulation; the general level of erudition and thought displayed by the article makes such sophistication highly unlikely. Instead, I think the author's thinking and unstated associations are being revealed by his writing.)
Finally, there's this last little bit: "...still doesn't register with Brandenburgh." The points in the preceding paragraph are presented not as theses, but as axioms whose truths have been abundently demonstrated. The article is being shaped not as a debate of Brandenburgh's points, but a prima facie acceptance of the author's implicit assumptions about the subject and how Brandenburgh's article doesn't match them.
Brandenburgh even acknowledges that "I'm no lover of guns. My family never has owned one, and I've never even held one in my hand. I suppose I'll buy one when I'm older, partly for self-defense and partly just to exercise my right."
Brandenburgh buys into the utterly simplistic notion that if you have a gun you can shoot the bad guy, whether it be one of the September 11th hijackers or a school shooter like Seung-Hui Cho who massacred 32 students and professors at Virginia Tech.
There's nothing particularly subtle about this section of text: The author is putting words in Brandenburgh's mouth in order to create a straw man whose nonexistent assertion will be attacked.
Never mind that such acts of "terror" are not the norm, and in fact far from it, to necessitate everyone and their mother walking around with a deadly handgun.
I don't understand why "terror" gets scare quotes, but of greater interest is yet more syntactic mangling. Here's the condensed sentence: "Such acts are not the norm...to necessitate walking around with a gun." This structure is technically correct if using unconventional meanings of the words, but isn't natural for English. A more likely explanation is that, like above, the structure of the sentence shifts in the middle as the author changed focus.
And what did he change focus to? "...everyone and their mother walking around with a deadly handgun." I'm giving him a walk on the pronoun mismatch, because everyone and their mother does that nowadays. However, note the hyperbole and framing: The opposing argument must justify everyone carrying a "deadly handgun."
Finally, this section has yet another use of throwaway phrasing meant to imply that its assertions are already established: "Nevermind that..."
Mr. Brandenburgh's extremist views are the real "danger". Certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when writers, especially students, peddle such misguided and deadly views such as advocating for colleges to allow deadly handguns inside classrooms and student dorms, it is important to challenge them.
Brandenburgh's views are characterized as "misguided and deadly", but this is perfectly acceptable if the characterization is supported later on. What's notable here is the repetition of the exact technique used above, where the phrase "deadly handguns" is used next to an explicit enumeration of locations where they could be located.
For starters, let's just call a spade a spade: Individuals carrying guns on a commercial airplane, are you kidding? It's laughable, but yet many gun supporters actually take the idea seriously. There's simply no end to their extremist ideology.
This isn't even an argument. It isn't discussed further until several paragraphs down, which lends the article a random and incoherent tone.
Remember the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City? You might recall that gun radicals wanted to be able to carry their concealed handguns into Olympic events -- I guess, as Brandenburgh would have it, to "shoot the bad guy." (Never mind that we still don't know who's a bad guy and who's not -- we'll just know when the shooting starts).
I'm not sure what the author is trying to say in the italicized section. Is he trying to sarcastically dismiss the ability to determine that someone is a "bad guy" by the fact that he's gunning down people? Is he trying to suggest that concealed-carry is useless unless it allows somone to "shoot the bad guy" before he starts killing people?
Again, the idea of allowing guns on airplanes is completely ridiculous, as is the notion of guns in our schools and daycares. But let's analyze this for a second.
There is a logistical nightmare of how you determine which gun owners are "responsible" enough to carry a gun on a plane and which ones aren't. Hint: I bet gun guys would allow white guys to carry guns on planes but not air travelers of different skin color or ethnicity. How would you know who is "responsible" if you didn't implement a national registration and licensing system for each gun owner? Hmmm...
First, the italicized section is a gross and offensive ad hominem attack against gun owners.
On a more subtle note, there are a couple statements slipped into the second paragraph in such a way to not appear as assertions requiring justification: Determination of responsibility should precede allowing a certain action, and the determination of responsibility could only be achieved via a national registration and licensing system.
Would gun toting air travelers have weapons on their hips? Or would gun guys have to at least put their guns in a bag or locked container? And if the gun is locked, how would you access it in time and be able to effectively halt a hijacking without causing a chain of events that could turn an airplane into a fireball in mid-air?
The second hypothetical question posed by the author is a straw man argument whose apparent purpose is to present the imagery of an airplane turning "into a fireball in mid-air..." The author's assault on his straw man implies that there is an insurmountable burden of proof for how a gun may be accessed in time to prevent a hijacking--but apparently there is no burden of proof for how gunplay on an airplane causes it to explode in midair. This makes the next paragraph unintentionally hilarious:
Such logistics are simply not something gun enthusiasts ever consider. They fail to think about the endgame.
This should be a canonical example of the pot calling the kettle black.
The same goes for college students who want to pack concealed handguns in college classrooms and dorms -- because lord knows that college students are always responsible and never drink.
Sarcasm is again used to treat student irresponsibility with guns as a fait accompli instead of stating that students will be irresponsible and tragedies will occur--both of which can be argued or directly addressed. It's likely this is not an intentional rhetorical technique, but its offhand nature reflects a lack of examination by the author.
Considering that gun supporters oppose locking guns up, would college professors and students have guns on their hips? If the guns were locked, would graduate teaching fellows (GTF's) also have a key to access the gun? Considering that Cho fired 120 rounds in a matter of minutes, could a professor or teacher react quickly enough and effectively enough -- more on that below -- to halt the attack? Put aside the immorality of guns in classrooms, the logistics do matter.
Both the strawman technique and argument are identical to the airplane example used above. Even the last sentence corresponds to the last paragraph of the airplane article. Here's a side-by-side comparison:
Would gun toting air travelers have weapons on their hips?
...would college professors and students have guns on their hips?
Or would gun guys have to at least put their guns in a bag or locked container?
If the guns were locked, would graduate teaching fellows (GTF's) also have a key to access the gun?
And if the gun is locked, how would you access it in time and be able to effectively halt a hijacking...?
...could a professor or teacher react quickly enough and effectively enough -- more on that below -- to halt the attack?
Such logistics are simply not something gun enthusiasts ever consider.
Put aside the immorality of guns in classrooms, the logistics do matter.
The repetition of the argument is almost rote, and it looks like the author is not even aware of it. The two examples provide a great opportunity to tie together the logistics of responding to a massacre to the assumed safety requirements; this would dovetail very nicely with the author's discussion on the ability of someone carrying a gun to respond to the threat. I hate to assume the worst of another, but it really looks like the author doesn't even examine his own stances enough to recognize that he's repeating himself.
Finally, we can't pass up this little gem:
Put aside the immorality of guns in classrooms, the logistics do matter.
What makes guns in classrooms immoral? It's never explained or justified against any ethos.
What gun guys will say -- and believe -- is that because they know for sure, in their guts, they could stop an attack with a gun, then it must be so, despite all the evidence that says otherwise.
This is another ad hom statement with no justification.
The most definitive resource to refute misguided ideas such as Brandenburgh's is "Unintended Consequences: Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-Defense" by the Violence Policy Center.
The VPC is an anti-gun organization; quoting them for an anti-gun argument is about as credible as quoting the NRA for a pro-gun statement.
The article cites a section from the "Unintended Consequences" article. All quotes are taken out of context. However, the use of one quote is interesting:
"A handgun is the hardest firearm to shoot accurately, and, even when you hit what you are shooting at, your target doesn't vaporize in a red mist like on television." (Unintended Consequences, p. 5)
This is used as an argument against concealed-carry, but apparently doesn't apply to spree killers, which further supports the theory that the author does not examine his own stances: Why else would he use a quote that works against his thesis? It's as if his understanding of an argument's applicability is limited to its immediate context: The article he quotes is against concealed carry, therefore this quote only concerns concealed carry.
An alternate explanation is that the author is not addressing the application of the quote to his own stances because it would undermine them and he will not or cannot defend them.
Guns in college classrooms or on airplanes don't work for self-defense, not just because "we say so", but because GunGuys.com believes in commonsense, pragmatic solutions based on evidence.
It's worth noting at this point that the article did not use even one non-fallacious argument or cite any evidence from a non-biased source. It is either an attempt to persuade people the author considers stupid, or the product of a dogmatic, disorganized, and uncritical mind.