Will an "anti" please explain my logic error

R

RWK

New member
I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Here is my rationale, in the most fundamental and logical terms:

a) Virtually no one denies the right to self-preservation (and, also, protection of one's family and innocent individuals in general).
b) We live in a very dangerous and violent society (even "safe" neighborhoods and rural communities experience vicious crimes).
c) Under ideal conditions, law enforcement will take minutes to respond to 9-1-1 emergency calls (this is NOT a criticism of the police, but they simply cannot be omnipresent).
d) MANY very bad things can -- and do -- happen in the minutes it takes for law enforcement to arrive on-scene (how long does it take to fire a shot and flee?).
e) Therefore, since the police cannot ensure protection for my family and for me, I have the RIGHT and the DUTY to do so.

I challenge any "anti" to find a legitimate deficiency in this logic!
 
Imagine old Start trek, Kirk talking to HCI, the computer trying to take on the world
HCI Computer:
But..But...But...
...The Children...
Gun violence...Bad... bad...bad

BOOM!!! (explosion rips off Kirk's shirt)
(Kirk then finds sexy green alien)
 
RWK,

I am not an "anti," but I can see your logic has some trouble spots.

Your premise statements (A-D) support your conclusion (E) for the most part. No significant problem there. However, you have included no linking between your right and duty to protect yourself and family to the issue of the right to keep and bear arms. From what I am reading, I believe that you are trying to support RKBA, but you have not done so based on the argument you presented.

If you are trying to say that your argument supports RKBA, then you have some logic problems. The first is that while you have the right to protect your family, this issue is not the same as RKBA. There are other ways in which you could protect your family that do not include firearms. Just as easily stated, your rights and duties to protect could extent to the right to keep and bear knives, nuclear weapons, land mines, etc., as well as having martial arts training, security guards, a Corvette getaway-to-safety car, or whatever.

To justify RKBA would mean that RKBA has to be a conclusion to the premises. You have apparently tried to substitute the concept of self protection with RKBA, but these are not directly interchangible. You might try something like:

A) The Constitution states I have a right to keep and bear arms
B) The only effective countermeasure to criminals with arms is with arms (examples here include police and military)
C) Society has many criminals who have arms
D) I live in a society with criminals
E) The police cannot respond fast enough to protect me
F) I have the right to protect myself and my family.
Therefore, I believe I have the right to keep and bear arms to protect myself and family against gun wielding BGs.

Okay, so my logic string isn't perfect, but maybe you get the point. You have to show a connection between your rights and duties of protection with RKBA.
 
Someone had once posted a great commentary on how we really ought to have a police officer per person, defending them 24-7. How the only way that's possible is by deputizing everyone...in effect, CHL. Anyone got a link to that?
 
Gopher 45,

I respectfully disagree. There certainly is a direct, practical correlation between the right to keep and bear firearms and self-/innocent-protection. Firearms are the only realistic way to stop an armed felon who is determined to do grave bodily harm:

> Less lethal remedies (knives, pepper sprays, martial arts, etc.) are likely to be ineffective against a criminal equipped with a firearm.

> More dangerous weapons (we've all seen the RKBA argument extended to tactical fighters, nuclear weapons, and such ridiculous fantasies) are entirely impractical.

Therefore, firearms are the only pragmatic way the average citizen can defend his family against an armed criminal. To summarize, the innate right of self-preservation necessitates the right to keep and bear arms.

The logic in my earlier post remains unaltered.
 
Putting on my anti hat (ouch, my brain's too big):

The fact that your gun might some day help you ward off an attacker pales in comparison to the dangers that having the gun in your home presents. Accidents happen, and the chances of you injuring yourself or someone else become quite high if you'll be handling the gun or shooting it over the years. Eventually, you'll make a mistake (we all do), and any mistake with a gun could get you or someone else killed.

Things get even worse when you have a curious child in the home who wants to play a game, or doesn't understand the gun as well as you might.

So, it's your contention that you are more likely to use your gun against a bad guy while I believe that it is more likely that you will injure someone while practicing or cleaning the gun or have the gun stolen from your home when you aren't there, or have someone unauthorized take control of the gun.

You are not the police. Their job is to confront criminals and so their chances of encountering a bad guy are MUCH higher than yours. Even though they may have an accident just like you, the good they'll do with it outweighs the chance of an accident.

This, of course, is a logical anti argument, and I've never seen one before.
 
Thanks for your reply. I understand your "anti" points. My "pro" response is simple:

> Accidents do not naturally occur. They are manifestations of carelessness, poor training, inadequate oversight, mediocre discipline, and so forth. There are good examples (the Navy's nuclear power program during the last three decades, for one) of very complex and inherently dangerous operations being executed without injury. Accordingly, it can be done.

> Children (even pre-elementary school age) can be trained to be safe with firearms in the home. I know; my father was a long-term FBI Special Agent, I grew up in a household where firearms were always present, and I was thoroughly taught to be safe -- but not curious -- with guns. Here, too, it can be done.

> It is law enforcement's job to confront criminals. However, it is also my duty to ensure my safety, that of my family, and -- to the degree possible -- that of innocent fellow citizens.

The overall argument that many/most people will not exercise the serious responsibilities of gun ownership reliably should not abrogate the rights of those who will. Civil and criminal penalties exist to remedy irresponsibility.
 
Dear RWK,

You asked for someone to explain the fault in your logic and that is what I did. You have freely associated the idea that RKBA with self protection, but the argument you constructed did not say that. For the logic to be correct, then you have to place definitive links with each of the steps. Nowhere in your actual statement was linked RKBA and self defense. You did an okay job at building the argument for self defense, but not RKBA.

You say that there is a practical correlation between RKBA and self protection and that firearms are the only realistic way to stop an armed felon who is intent on doing you harm. Well, in terms of the logic of the argment you constructed and your follow-up statements, your logic is flawed, but your sentiments are RIGHT ON THE MONEY!

For example, you say there is a practical correlation between RKBA and self protection. "Correlations" do not substantiate logic arguments. A correlation means that two things co-occur without justifying that one necessarily causes or influences the other. Two things can correlate without there being any relationship to one another.

Let's look at your next statement that firearms are the only realistic way to stop an armed felon..." This is what is called "an unsupported claim." You did state that the other options I listed were not practical. You are correct, but here is the key point you missed. Your original posting said nothing about practicality. In essence, you are trying to change the parameters of the argument to keep the argument alive. This is a type of debate tactic where the proponent of particular view tries to defend that view by arguing points that were not part of the original argument...getting off track as it were.

My original reply may have included fantasy-like possibilities and some may not have been practical, these value statements being your OPINION, but the weakness of the argument you set up allowed for me to counter with such garbage. The right to self defense conclusion you have allows for any method to be used and does not point directly to firearms. In fact, none of your premises (A-D) mention guns or firearms or anything like that in conjunction with trying to provide protection. "E" is your conclusion and it also fails to mention firearms. Your intro statement that you "believe in the right to keep and bear arms" is a free-standing statement that you have apparently correlated with the conclusion that people have the right to defend themselves. The is weak, weak, weak, and downright unsupported in terms of the logic of the argument construction.

Don't confuse sentiments, opinions, intent, and perceptions as logic argument justifications. I "feel" the same way you do about this issue and I am trying to help you with the logic of the argument. What I "feel" does not make the issue better justified. The argument that you presented was not logically sound although it is well intended.

Keep in mind, you asked or challeged people to find a flaw in your logic. Logic follows a specific set of rules if the argument is to be logically sound. You violated several of those rules by the way in which you constructed your argument.

Let me put this another way, if I were an anti, or more importantly if I were a fence sitter and I heard your argument, I would not be convinced. You simply left too many holes uncovered.
 
Gopher 45
How about (A-F) establishing the right to self defense then
G) Firearms are the most effective way of defending oneself (insert numbers on successful defenses - I believe I have seen Gov't numbers showing this to be true - please correct me if incorrect)

Therefore, RKBA.
Is more needed?
Thanks

------------------
Rob
From the Committee to Use Proffesional Politicians as Lab Animals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
She doesn't have bad dreams because she's made of plastic...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
bad Kiki! No karaoke in the house!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You will be assimilated. Resistance is E/I
 
RWK:
You should be aware that there are plenty of people out there who would deny your premise marked (A), though they would word it differently. Instead of "self-preservation" they would call it "self-defense" and say that in a civilized society we transfer that right to the state.
I don't agree with that, but there are people who feel that way.
 
A bit tangential, but speaking of antis, it seems to me they commonly commit the following logical error, so I'm wondering if there is a specific name for this error of logic:

Taking one's own experience, beliefs, pre-dispositions, etc., and applying them to the public at large as well - assuming that what they would do in situation X, others would also do, without considering the difference in behaviors in different types of humans. In other words, antis are by and large, idealistic and good-hearted, well-meaning people - so they assume that everyone else is basically good deep down, so if they could just rid society of those evil guns, violence would decrease. The error of course is that they're failing to realize that a significant minority of the population does, always has had, and always will have, a "black heart", will be evil, and will hurt other people someway, somehow, and will find some tool to do this. Given this reality, the RKBA becomes quite sensible. But the antis are blind to this reality, and think they can turn all bad hearts good if this or that could only happen (ban guns, eliminate child abuse, etc.), because they in fact are generally good, loving people. This is also why they think socialism/communism will work - that everyone will be willing to work hard to help their fellow man.

Is there a name for this error?

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited June 09, 2000).]
 
Futo Inu: I generally agree with your posts, but on the point of liberals/anti's beliefs I have to disagree. They do _not_ believe that everyone is good at heart. They distrust everyone. They don't believe in tax cuts or Social Security privatization because they think most people would squander the money. On guns, they think that if a person who's never committed a crime in his life is suddenly "allowed" to own a gun, he will be instantly transformed into a murderous Jesse James. They think that if we as a country initiate a Strategic Defense Initiative, then we will nuke the rest of the world. Their entire philosophy is based on man's inate evil and the goodness of government.

Dick
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Futo Inu:
Is there a name for this error?
[/quote]

Solipsism: the mistaken belief that others have the same mindset as oneself.

HTH. :)
 
I'll play: ;)

Duh. "B" exists because of firearms!

(No further communication will change this thought.)
 
The US Constitution does not grant the right to bear arms. It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Therefore it must recognize the right to bear arms as an inalienable right. To me the right to bear arms exists outside the constitution.

The only defense against the stronger, swifter criminal is a firearm. Criminals are like animals they are going to pick the easy target and that means usually the ill, elderly or infirmed. Just like wolves and lions they pick the weakest animals. And also one needs to remember the criminal gets to pick the time, the place, the weapon and the victim whereas the victim can only respond.

Freedom is the right to bear arms. Those who say you don't need an AK or other assault weapon miss the point. Freedom is not about need. It is about choice.
 
Gopher .45 wrote:A) The Constitution states I have a right to keep and bear arms
B) The only effective countermeasure to criminals with arms is with arms (examples here include police and military)
C) Society has many criminals who have arms
D) I live in a society with criminals
E) The police cannot respond fast enough to protect me
F) I have the right to protect myself and my family.

I'm neither pro nor anti. However, here are some suggested "anti" responses to your logic (which would also work with the original post to this thread, I think).

1) Your right to protect your family can be legitimately limited by other societal considerations. For instance, you don't have the right to set rifle booby-traps in the name of protecting your family, because if a lot of people set booby-traps to protect their families it would have the unintended side effect of killing a lot of people who weren't about to murder your family.

2) A significant proportion of murders (especially murders of women) are committed by relatives. I would bet that murders taking place inside the home are overwhelmingly likely to be committed by another family member, rather than by a random criminal.

3) For all the same reasons that arms are the most effective countermeasure to criminals, arms are also the most effective way of impulsively murdering (say) a spouse - family assaults involving guns are 12 times as likely to result in death than those involving other weapons (JAMA, 6/10/92).

4) Police cannot respond fast enough to protect me from an angry family member with a gun.

5) Because assaults in the home are more likely to be committed by family members than by strange criminals, and because family assaults with guns are far more likely to lead to fatalities than those with other weapons, putting more guns in family homes might actually lead to increased deaths overall.

6) Enabling you to protect your family is a noble goal, but it's not worth making it far more likely that the weapon at hand people grab in family assaults will be a gun, because that would lead to much-increased mortality.

Note that this argument does not assume that anyone with a gun turns into a homocidal maniac; it merely assumes that some small proportion of the entire population will at one time or another attack a family member, and that the likely outcome of these attacks will be affected by whether or not the weapon at hand is a gun.

--Amp

[This message has been edited by Ampersand (edited June 12, 2000).]
 
I think that you guys are soooo close to a winning argument...

Let me help:

I am a Reserve Police Officer for a City P.D. , and I am going to tell you what is the absolute argument about police protection...

IT DOES NOT EXIST !!!

I`ll say it again for all you just tuning in...

POLICE PROTECTION DOES NOT EXIST !!!

Except under special circumstances,( Witness Protection program, V.I.P. protection, Etc.) there is no obligation of the Police to protect you or any individual from harm...
It is NOT a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to be protected by the Police, their job is to enforce the laws and and to apprehend and arrest criminals for prosecution. Which usually happens AFTER the fact.
You cannot SUE the CITY, COUNTY OR STATE for "Lack of Protection" if you become a Crime Victim while waiting for the Police to show up to "PROTECT AND SERVE" you...

The Police have NO CULPABILITY in the event that you or anyone is harmed or KILLED before they can arrive to assist...

( IS ANYBODYS` HAIR STANDING UP ON THEIR NECK YET ???)

YOU are ultimately responsible for protecting yourself and your property...

IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS ABOUT THIS...

LOOK AT THE L.A. RIOTS / CIVIL UNREST.
THE POLICE WITHDREW FROM THE AREA, AND SET UP A PERIMETER OUTSIDE THE DANGER ZONE AS PER DEPT. POLICY. WHO DEFENDED THE PEOPLE AND STORE-FRONTS STILL INSIDE THIS RATHER LARGE ZONE???
THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES HAD TO!!!!!

THE PEOPLE HAD TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THEIR PROPERTY AND STORE-FRONTS BY THEMSELVES!!!
THEY WERE FORCED TO EVEN SPRAY PAINT SIGNS, AND BUILDINGS, WARNING CRIMINALS AND LOOTERS THAT THEY WERE ARMED, AND NOT WILLING TO BE VICTIMS...

IF THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO BEAR ARMS, MANY MORE LIVES WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST,
LIKE LAMBS TO THE SLAUGHTER...

DOES ANY OF THIS RING A BELL..???

So don`t fool yourself into a false sense of security by thinking that the police will "RUSH" to your call and you will be saved...

After all " YOU`RE NOT THE ONLY CALL WE HAVE, WAIT YOUR TURN..."
RESPONSE TIME...???
"WE`LL GET THERE JUST AS SOON AS WE CAN ....."

Look into supreme court cases, and you`ll see that I`m right.

IF YOU DON`T BELIEVE ME...
GO INTO HARMS WAY !

The Coroner never has to worry about arriving "Too Late".

------------------
SHOOT,COMMUNICATE AND MOVE OUT !



[This message has been edited by GIT_SOME.45 (edited June 12, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top