We all know the Schumers and Feinsteins of the world will always have their carry permits or their armed bodyguards, the subtext is that no reason for gun ownership is legitimate if you're one of the little people.
It is pretty obvious that one of the big selling points of gun control is and always has been that Elmer Fudd can keep his ol' double barrel. There is no straw man there, you just wanted there to be one.
The blogger is saying that guns aren't all about hunting - self-defense is is another pupose. The typical anti's counter is that accidental deaths + minor altercations turning into shootouts at the OK corral outweigh any benefits of self defense. The counter doesn't, however, take self defense out of the equation. You pointed out that Feinstein has a CCW (in the state of California of all places - due to her not being one of the little people.) Again, self defense is still acknowledged. Had the blogger discussed the issue of little people versus Schumer, Daley, Boxer, et al, then your argument would count. However, the blogger denied such distinctions with the comment about Judges with CCW listening to self-defense cases. If anything, you've only shown that the blogger's arguments are insufficient.
And that's the problem. Many of blogger's arguments are weak. Using weak arguments to support any cause, no matter how right or sound, is still weak. I don't think the blogger deserves a free pass just because I agree with the overall conclusion that private ownership of firearms is a fundamental right.
We may as well start discussing what the blogger meant versus wrote, or what's really in the hearts and minds of the anti's. Sure. It's not as clear cut as I initially made out to be. But that's just one quote so far that you pulled against me. Are you going to defend the monarchy argument, or the 1 out of 3 talk
Speaking of straw man, your example re: nukes would have been better had you pointed out that it is both a straw man and a case of reductio ad absurdam.
Why thank you, I missed that one.
You might also have mentioned that people who use that fallacy do more to make a spectacle of themselves than to lend any credibility to the anti-gun credo. Now, back on track.
Likewise, people who use such fallacies when defending the pro-gun credo also lose credibility and make spectacles.
So maybe you didn't see any specific references where the media has called for gun control as a result of the Sean Taylor case. So what?
It is a valid point as it addresses:
blogger said:
...the situation was the talk of the town here in Washington, D.C. where guns are already an ongoing topic of conversation.... We are going to hear a lot about guns in the next few months
But see there was no talk, with the blogger's implication that the talk was going to be anti-gun. Like I said, the talk was about the tragedy itself, the effect on the Redskins, and black-on-black crime. So I'm going to
Google sean taylor gun control, and surpise - out of the first five, two link to a Lou Pratt article against gun control, one blog for gun control, one story worrying that Sean Taylor's death might be used to further gun control causes, and one blog against gun control. As for
news items - none. Zero. The media seems to have skipped out on this one. You will have to consider this fact when you try to defend the "TV + news form surburban Lifetime mom's opinions" scenario.
4 against gun control, 1 for, in this little "dredging" expedition. Turns out the blogger's predictions went opposite. A comment from
one of the links said,
One thing's for sure: You can never underestimate politicians' ability to exploit private tragedy for public gain.
Yet we have the blogger exploiting Sean Taylor's death for the sake of his arguments. Doesn't that just irk you?
an incident doesn't have to pass all of applesanity's logic tests to be used by anti gunners.
Of course not. But your argument applies equally to pro-gunner claims that fail logic.
One of the core claims of anti gunners is: "we must ban or strictly regulate guns because they cause so many deaths". Hmm, let's think about that.
Swimming pools are regulated. Like I said earlier, in many instances you have to submit forms to your county and get the (hopefully) thumbs up from the neighbors, thereby acknowledging that you're gonna be the owner of swimming pool. As for cars, you have to get a driver's license if you want that car to leave your driveway with you driving it. You also have to register for some car insurance too. Hmm, swimming pools are dangerous, and are de facto registered. Cars are dangerous, and they are de jure + facto registered. Guns are dangerous; why don't we go ahead and register those things too, along with some state-mandated insurance?
As for tobacco analogies - those cigarette corporations got their pants sued off for "causing needless deaths." Maybe we should sue the Smith & Wesson. Ultimately, if one is going draw such analogies, one should be prepared to take them all the way, or to reductio ad absurdem, if you will.
just pointing out, rather obliquely, that they've been caught in a hypocrisy trap.
Hypocrisy undermines credibility, but it does not work as an argument in and of itself. Tu quoque arguments are used all the time to point out hypocrisy, but it almost never equates to the actual argument being refuted.
Just pretend for sake of argument that I'm a suburban mom who has no idea of Sean Taylor's race and no knowledge of his sports career.
This scenario is so narrow that you're inevitably going to render yourself right, given all the constraints you put on it. By the way, who watches Lifetime? Such a depressing channel.
