Success Warrior: The Blog That Embraces ADHD

Guns and Control Redux (Part 2)

So,

Explain why the technique you selected would be useful. 

I think this substitution works on several levels.  It points out that the argument is invalid because it’s self-defeating.  It provides an opportunity to disassociate from indoctrinated thought patterns and existing, potentially emotionally charged, biases.  The idea of banning all dogs from biting is likely to be quickly dismissed as absurd, meeting this requirement of reductio ad absurdum.  It also uses analogy to point to something that never seems to get discussed.

Arguments against gun control laws tend to come in three flavors:

• Challenging the premise that people who have guns are dangerous (grasping by the horn)
• Substituting situations that are more dangerous into the logic (reductio ad absurdum)
• Appeal to the Constitution (using the 2nd Amendment - a fallacious argument with a plethora of suspects – appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, begging the question, amphiboly, and probably many more)

The first two are done to demonstrate that the argument is weak and the third is a misguided attempt at asserting a person's rights.  In the first, stories and stats are presented to show that far more guns are kept or used in ways that do not harm innocent people and that the media-hyped incidents (appeal to misleading vividness) account for a miniscule portion of the people who have guns.  The second substitutes more dangerous situations that people don’t want banned into the argument.  For instance, many more people are killed by mistakes and diseases they contract in hospitals than by felonious gun use, therefore people should be banned from going to hospitals, in order to protect them from an unsafe situation (you can substitute showers, smoking, Coke and McDonald’s, and a whole host of causes of death and injury far more dangerous than people with guns).  While both do a good job of showing that the gun control argument is weak, the dog/pit bull substitution goes one step farther, showing that the argument is worse than weak, it’s not even valid.  Strength and weakness don’t even need to be considered because it is essentially a self-defeating, non-argument.

Framing the argument around dogs helps put some distance between the argument and indoctrinated thought patterns and closely-held biases.  People have some very illogical ideas when discussing gun control (which will be discussed in the answer to the next question) and making dogs the center of attention may help them to think more rationally about the argument.

Arguing that dogs should be banned from biting is laughably dismissed.  Most dogs bite naturally out of fear for their own safety or in protection of their owners/property.  No one faults a dog that bites out of self-defense or that bites an intruder that enters a house.  When dogs do bite, the blame usually goes to the owner of the dog who either failed to maintain control of the dog, or worse, trained the dog to be vicious.  When someone hurts someone with a gun, no one looks intently at the parents, teachers, social workers, social system, clergy, or others who played a role in training the person to be vicious.  The gun becomes a scapegoat, either to avoid being tasked with solving the real and much more difficult problem, or to disarm the subjects of a country to make them easier to control, or some other motive not actually related to the "danger" of people having guns.

The analogy (which would probably be missed by most people) specifically using pit bulls as a substitution uses another indoctrination theme played out by the corporate media.  When you say “dogs,” the image of your own dog comes to mind or the thought of them as “man’s best friend.”  When you say, “pit bull,” thanks to media-hyped incidents (appeal to misleading vividness – are you sensing a theme?), people think of vicious, snarling beasts that rip children to shreds.  However, in this case, the pit bulls’ masters are scrutinized and many times, it is found that they trained the pit bulls to attack.  This creates the impression that pit bulls are inherently dangerous and that their masters are idiots and/or cruel, inhumane bastards who knowingly created a potential menace to society.  If you were to compare the number of innocent people killed and injured with a gun by people who are not government employees with those who are killed and injured by government employees, not surprisingly, you would find that government employees are by far the greater threat.  The nature of their training, environment, mindset, and weaponry makes them inherently more dangerous (I was a cop for 12 years and killed someone in the line of duty) and there is no doubt that their masters are idiots and/or cruel, inhumane bastards who knowingly create a potential menace to society. 

To be continued . . .

Related articles

Guns and Control Redux (Part 1)

Guns and Control Redux (Part 1)

So,

I am on another school break so that means that I have a chance to update my blog again.

And we care because . . .

I don't think he cares if you care.

I had a Logic class this go 'round and received quite a few kudos from the instructor for my ability to analyze concepts and put that analyzation into words.  In fact, she is going to be using one of my papers as a resource for future classes (hat tip to CV Rick for his comments on taxation providing beautiful support for my position).

You're not going to tell him the paper was on irrationality and self-deception, are you?

I wouldn't.

Anywhoooo, a different assignment required that we take an argument from our environment and do the following with the argument:

• Create a counter-argument using one of the techniques studied in the course
• Transcribe the argument/counter-argument
• Explain why the counter-argument was chosen
• Explain likely obstacles to the acceptance of the counter-argument

Doing this assignment gave me a bit more insight into the argument and counter-argument so I'm adding it to my blog (Guns and Control v2.0, if you will).  This post will cover the first two bullet points with subsequent posts covering the second two bullet points.  This first two are short and kind of boring . . .

He's making the assumption that his other blog posts aren't boring

Indeed he is.

. . . but I am including them because they set up the the remaining two points and they also show where I made some assumptions in the first three Guns and Control posts.  In working through the assignment, I realized that I had made some jumps over information relevant to the argument.  The end result is the same and much of the information presented is the same as the information contained in the first three Guns and Control posts although written more formally and without comments from the voices in my head.

No wonder it's boring.

I concur.

Creating the counter-argument using reductio ad absurdum and answering the follow up questions that were posed does add a different perspective than previously presented.  The combination of a more thorough examination of the underlying logic of the gun control argument and the new angle of approach prompted me to add these posts to the original Guns and Control trilogy.

This is why we are supposed to care?

I still don't think he cares if you care.

Think of a specific instance – real or hypothetical – in your own profession or daily environment in which using either (a) the method of counter-example or reductio ad absurdum to  demonstrate an argument’s invalidity, or else (b) one of the techniques for escaping from a logical dilemma would be useful.  Detail the instance.

If dogs (D) that bite (B) are an unsafe situation (~S) and unsafe situations should be avoided, then dogs or the act of biting or both dogs and the act of biting should be eliminated.
Dogs should not be eliminated so biting should be banned.
To ensure compliance with the ban, pit bulls (P) will be trained to bite.
All pit bulls are dogs.
Therefore, to prevent the unsafe situation of dogs that bite, dogs will be trained to bite to prevent dogs from biting.

(((D ^ B) --> (~S)) ^ (~ (~S)) --> ~ (D ^ B)
 ~~D ^ ~B
~ (D ^ B) --> (P ^ B)
P --> D
(~ (~S)) --> ((D ^ B) ^ ~ (D ^ B))

((D ^ B) ^ ~ (D ^ B)) violates the law of non-contradiction (P ^ ~P) and is always false.  In a conditional statement, a true antecedent that leads to a false consequent is a false statement.  The combination makes this a self-defeating and false argument.

The argument above is a substitution for the argument for gun control laws:

If people (P) who have guns (G) are an unsafe situation (~S) and unsafe situations should be avoided, then people or guns or both people and guns should be eliminated.
People should not be eliminated so guns should be banned.
To ensure compliance with the ban, government employees (E) will be given guns.
All government employees are people*.
Therefore, to prevent the unsafe situation of people having guns, people will be given guns to prevent people from having guns.

* You might argue that IRS agents are not human but in the logical sense, they are people.

(((P ^ G) --> (~S)) ^ (~ (~S)) --> ~ (P ^ G)
~~P ^ ~G
~ (P ^ G) --> (E ^ G)
 E --> P
(~ (~S)) --> ((P ^ G) ^ ~ (P ^ G))

To be continued . . .