Reality Check: Liberal handgun ban

[Ani_Ibi]

2shelbys:

You are mischaracterizing. No one here has said they have a problem with keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons and other dangerous people. No one is against ALL regulation but we are not discussing ALL regulation in this thread we are talking about bans.

Quite true. In Post # 259 I set out the Conservative Party of Canada’s proposal for gun regulation which includese a real registry: a registry of violent criminals.

D-oh! I forgot. A suggestion has to be read in order to be responded to.

 

[Philip_P]

Well this raises an interesting question: how to decide what is appropriate in a public discussion. Ani’s declaration that she is “dumfounded (post 288)” and Vern’s demand that I “apologize (post 290),” suggest, taken on their face value, that I broached some standard of conduct held by our online community. My offense? A post that mirrors one posted by wabrams in post 270, though taking the opposite position (hence “mirroring, as in being a reflection in reverse). Now my stating of the pro-gun position was quite obviously crudely reductionist, a reduction ad absurdum, precisely as wabram’s stating of the position of the pro-strict-regulation side is. No one on “my” side demanded an apology. While I can’t speak for everyone, personally I didn’t find wabram’s post offensive at all. I think a *reduction ad absurdum *is a perfectly legitimate debating technique.

More importantly, however, no one on the pro-gun side protested either. This seems to indicate that both sides of the debate find the *reductio *acceptable (or at least not worth getting bent out of shape over). All well and good.

When confronted with a reductio, one can simply ignore it, which 9/10 times is the wisest move, the absurdity of the argument being obvious enough, or to point out the absurdity. I did so by posting a *reductio *of my own. Now each person may come to their own conclusions as to how effective such a response is, but the acceptability of the reductio technique has already been established by the community’s response to wabram’s post.

How then to explain the outburst of righteous indignation at my post? Several possibilities exist:

1.   There is no indignation.  This is simply another rhetorical strategy.

2.   There community sincerely does believe the *reduction *to be outside of acceptable norms, and neither wabram’s nor myself should have engaged in it.

3.   There is nothing wrong with the technique, so long as the “right” people use it.  Or, conversely, the technique is wrong, except when used to support positions you personally agree with.

We can immediately discount three, as that is simply moral relativism, the morality of the action dependent entirely on *who *engages in it. As for 1 and 2, the lack of indignation to the initial *reductio *argues against 2.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

First you falsely represent our positions, and then you attack another poster? What kind of gentlemanly debate is that?

It’s not attacking another poster. I personally have no problems with reductio ad absurdum, and you’ll notice I didn’t ask wabrams to apologize. But if such a technique is really offensive, then what am I to make of the fact that you demand no apology from wabrams but you expect one from me? Am I to conclude that it is ok for those you agree with to “falsely represent” the position of the other side, but somehow wrong if those you disagree with do the same?

If you want an apology, and you want me to take your demand seriously, you need to be consistent.

 

[rlg94086]

MikeWM:

There are various carrot and stick ways of doing it. Amnesties, followed by stronger punishments after the amnesty is over, for example.

Mike

Sounds good, but the implementation would be extremely expensive and difficult! And, your punishments come in when? After they’ve shot someone? …assuming you catch them. There are a gazillion (approximately ) guns out there. They are easy to hide. Plus, it would have to be a global ban.

Good luck on that.

Robert

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

It’s not attacking another poster. I personally have no problems with reductio ad absurdum, and you’ll notice I didn’t ask wabrams to apologize. But if such a technique is really offensive, then what am I to make of the fact that you demand no apology from wabrams but you expect one from me?

Because he didn’t make a flagrant accusation – and you did, claiming your opponents argued they had a right to shoot people.

You said:

Now how am I supposed to take seriously a position that says that shooting people is a right comparable to not being discriminated against based on race?

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Because he didn’t make a flagrant accusation – and you did, claiming your opponents argued they had a right to shoot people.

You said:

wabrams:

Anti-Gun Posters: We don’t like them no matter how much gun accidents have gone done, therefore they should be banned. Furthermore, several are from countries that don’t allow firearms; they don’t care that their crime rate went up after the ban.

Look, I have no problems with what wabrams posted above. But since you don’t either, then what’s your beef with my post? He can say that I don’t care about increasing crime, but I can’t say he wants the right to shoot people (I mean, I just assumed that the right to own guns implied a right to use them).

If you find feigning indignation to be a useful technique, well hey, go right ahead. Just don’t expect me to take you seriously next time you ask for an apology.

 

[Philip_P]

BTW, I realize that with online discussion it’s not always easy to tell tone. So if anyone ever is unsure as to my intent - whether I’m simply being rhetorical or being sincere - just ask. I’m more than happy to give a straight up answer removed from the ebb and flow of argument. And if you don’t feel comfortable asking in public, you’re all more than welcome to private message.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Look, I have no problems with what wabrams posted above. But since you don’t either, then what’s your beef with my post? He can say that I don’t care about increasing crime, but I can’t say he wants the right to shoot people (I mean, I just assumed that the right to own guns implied a right to use them).

If you find feigning indignation to be a useful technique, well hey, go right ahead. Just don’t expect me to take you seriously next time you ask for an apology.

Wabrams post did not accuse anyone of saying shooting someone was a right.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Philip P:

Look, I have no problems with what wabrams posted above.

I thought you wanted folks to take issue with wabrams’s post in order to justify taking issue with your post.

That taking issue with wabram’s post is some sort of means test before we can take issue with your post.

Or, whatever people have to say about your post cannot be valid unless people also have something to say about wabrams post.

Who decided that?
Philip P:

But since you don’t either, then what’s your beef with my post?

Asked and answered.

You misrepresented the positions taken by those supporting ownership of guns by private citizens. But we’ve said that more than a few times. Why wasn’t once enough?
Philip P:

He can say that I don’t care about increasing crime

Take it up with him, I guess.
Philip P:

but I can’t say he wants the right to shoot people

Is that what you said, Philip? Or did you say this:
Philip P:

Pro-gun Posters: Shooting people is a God-given right, trumping all other considerations including the right of communities to determine appropriate legislation and regulation.

I am a pro-gun poster. I never said that shooting people is a God-given right. Your synopsis of a position which I might subscribe to was inaccurate and offered with some degree of bad faith. It was an unhelpful misrepresentation. It did not serve clarity. It served to turn the discussion toward where you wanted it to go, not toward where it actually was going.

(I mean, I just assumed that the right to own guns implied a right to use them).

There was no opening for you to assume. Our position had been set out clearly in detail several times – by ourselves. There was no need, nor did we ask you to relanguage or interpret what we are capable of saying and have said – ourselves.

As for the right to own guns implying a right to use them: that is moot. Several times now we have posted the 90% stat which demonstrates that, in 90% of situations in which a potential victim is armed, no shots are fired. Legitimate self-defence allows for the use of guns. Reason and restraint asks that no shots be fired where deterrance is sufficient. And in 90% of the cases the mere presence of a gun in the hands of a potential victim was a deterrant – no shots were fired.
Philip P:

If you find feigning indignation to be a useful technique, well hey, go right ahead.

I’m not feigning. I doubt if Vern is feigning, but ask him.
Philip P:

Just don’t expect me to take you seriously next time you ask for an apology.

You are trying to establish a quid pro quo where none is justified.

Vern’s apology is not at issue. Yours is.

There is no need for Vern to apologize. He has not misrepresented another’s post.

There is a need for you to apologize. You have misrepresented another’s post; many other’s posts as a matter of fact; the whole category of "pro-gun posters.’

 

[PhillyMatt]

Ok, I’m just gonna jump in here.

You guys can argue till you’re blue in the face. I think the whole conflicting views on guns can be summed up in a cultural difference.

Americans would rather trust themselves than others in regards to their own protection. Americans have always been strong in our individuality and would prefer to rely solely on ourselves.

Apparently, Europeans are not as individualistic as Americans. Europeans would rather put their safety into the hands of others and I’m guessing they have a more collective view on issues such as self-defense.

It’s just a difference in cultural.

 

[PhillyMatt]

The whole amnesty, turn guns in for lollipops might work in Britain. I think it wouldn’t work as well in the U.S., not only because I’m sure we’d never volunterily turn our guns in, but due to the different sizes of our countries. England is about the size of New Jersey, right?

In NJ, it’s basically impossible to get a handgun, NJ has the harshest gun laws in the country…NJ also has Camden, the MOST DANGEROUS CITY IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

 

[vern_humphrey]

PhillyMatt:

Ok, I’m just gonna jump in here.

You guys can argue till you’re blue in the face. I think the whole conflicting views on guns can be summed up in a cultural difference.

Americans would rather trust themselves than others in regards to their own protection. Americans have always been strong in our individuality and would prefer to rely solely on ourselves.

Apparently, Europeans are not as individualistic as Americans. Europeans would rather put their safety into the hands of others and I’m guessing they have a more collective view on issues such as self-defense.

It’s just a difference in cultural.

You’re correct. I can recall a trip to Europe when a young Scottish girl asked a group of Americans, “Why do you American oppose higher taxes? Here in Europe, we say taxes are the price we pay for freedom.”

And an American replied, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, not eternal taxation.”

 

[Philip_P]

Ani Ibi:

That taking issue with wabram’s post is some sort of means test before we can take issue with your post.

If you’re going to set yourself up as a referee by declaring my post out of bounds, then yes, I expect some consistency. Why is it right for wabrams to misrepresent my position but wrong for me to misrepresent his?

You misrepresented the positions taken by those supporting ownership of guns by private citizens. But we’ve said that more than a few times. Why wasn’t once enough?

Yes, that’s what a reductio ad absurdum is, a reduction of an argument to the point of abusrdity. If wabrams can do this to my position, why can’t I do it in return? Why does your side get a special dispensation?

I am a pro-gun poster. I never said that shooting people is a God-given right. Your synopsis of a position which I might subscribe to was inaccurate and offered with some degree of bad faith. It was an unhelpful misrepresentation. It did not serve clarity. It served to turn the discussion toward where you wanted it to go, not toward where it actually was going.

Nor have I said that I don’t care about crime or that I hate guns no matter what.

You are trying to establish a quid pro quo where none is justified.

Why do you get to declare this?

There is a need for you to apologize. You have misrepresented another’s post; many other’s posts as a matter of fact; the whole category of "pro-gun posters.’

An apology loses it’s power if it’s used gratuitously. When I have inadvertently crossed a line, I have apologized. Yet it is not at all clear I have crossed any line here, particularly since your outrage appears to be based entirely on the fact that I hold a different viewpoint on gun control than you. How else to explain the fact that you are fine with one misrepresentation but upset by another?

In any case, I’m done with this thread, before I actually do say something meriting an apology.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

If you’re going to set yourself up as a referee by declaring my post out of bounds, then yes, I expect some consistency. Why is it right for wabrams to misrepresent my position but wrong for me to misrepresent his?

Wabrams accused you of nothing – if his characterization of the arguments on each side was not completely accurate, you have a right to correct them. You do not have a right to accuse others of claiming they have a “right to shoot people.”
Philip P:

Yes, that’s what a reductio ad absurdum is, a reduction of an argument to the point of abusrdity.

To use reductio ad absurdum you must actually use the other person’s argument – you aren’t allowed to invent a new one for him. Especially not like the one you invented.
Philip P:

If wabrams can do this to my position, why can’t I do it in return? Why does your side get a special dispensation?

He didn’t accuse you of claiming you had a right to commit homicide.

 

[wabrams]

Geez, what a mess! Who knew stating the obvious would stir up a hornet’s nest!

PhillipP,

All I did was paraphrase the anit- and pro-gun arguements that have been thrown around this thread. I think the idea that pro-gun people want the right to shoot someone is way off the mark. I want the right to be armed and protect myself, family, and others in danger. I know full well that if I draw my weapon, I am drawing it with the intent to use deadly force. Fortunately, the statistics show there is roughly a 10% chance that I will actually fire it; the other 90% of the time causes the perpetrator to surrender or flee.

I would love a world where the only need to own a gun is for sporting (hunting, target shooting), but we don’t live in that world yet. Until then, increase police presence and let me and others like me keep our weapons! You never know: the person you want to disarm today might be the same person who saves your life if you get robbed at the ATM tomorrow!

 

[Sir_Knight]

Philip P:

Why is it right for wabrams to misrepresent my position but wrong for me to misrepresent his?

He MAY have misrepresented YOUR position but he wasn’t paraphrase just YOUR position but the ENTIRE anti-gun position and he did THAT accurately. You, on the other hand, did not because I went scanning the entire thread and could find no pro-gun post stating that they wanted to shoot people / kill people.
Philip P:

In any case, I’m done with this thread, before I actually do say something meriting an apology.

I think it might be too late for THAT.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Sir Knight:

I think it might be too late for THAT.

%between%
naute.com/images/nevertoolate.jpg

But I so totally don’t get it. The right thing to do is for Philip P to apologize. It has nothing to do with what someone else said or did.

 

[Sir_Knight]

It’s too late not to say something that might merit an apology because it has already been said. It is never too late to apology if the apology is sincere.

 

[Philip_P]

Since your all worked up over this, let me try this again.

Here is why my paraphrase is a reduction ad absurdum and not a personal insult.

Actual position stated by the pro-gun posters:

We have the right to self defense. Guns provide the most effective defense.

Now the reduction—> Why do guns provide the most effective defense? Because they represent a threat. The threat of what? That you may get shot. As people wish to avoid getting shot, this acts as a deterrent. Yet to be an effective threat, it must be credible. The right to use a gun in self defense therefore includes the right to shoot the gun in self defense, at your attacker if necessary. Ergo, the pro-gun side is claiming the right to shoot people.

I did not, and still, see nothing inappropriate in the *reductio *technique. I saw nothing inappropriate in wabrams’ using of the technique in mis-stating the pro-stricter regulation argument (of which I count myself a part of). However, my original intention in my mirror reply was to point out how easily it is to do a reductio, a subtle critique/reminder of the limited validity of such an argument.

Then, however, Vern and Ani got all hot and bothered. I’m not exactly sure why they feel personally slighted, as a *reductio *is, by its very nature, aburd. A critique of a position is not a critique of a person, something best keeping in mind during debate.

I cannot apologize if I do not believe I did something wrong. That would be a fake apology. I honestly do not understand Ani or Vern’s indignation. They are intelligent, reasonable people. They have plenty of familiarity with debate and discussion, and I know they understand reductio ad absurdum, as I have seen them use it themselves on occassion.

All I can offer is my condolences that you are upset, and the assurance that I never intend any **personal **slight in my posts, but honesty prohibits me from offering an apology where I see no valid cause for indignation. Take it or leave it, but that’s the best I can offer you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Now the reduction—> Why do guns provide the most effective defense? Because they represent a threat. The threat of what? That you may get shot. As people wish to avoid getting shot, this acts as a deterrent. Yet to be an effective threat, it must be credible. The right to use a gun in self defense therefore includes the right to shoot the gun in self defense, at your attacker if necessary. Ergo, the pro-gun side is claiming the right to shoot people.

So you not only make the false accusation, you repeat it.