Why do gun advocates use fallacies to present their argument?

Question

In other words, you can't go up against one philisophically without one of them using fear tactics like "Well, then you can expect to have your house invaded!" or straw man arguments like "You support gun control? So you DON'T believe people have right?" or illogical absolutes like "It's our right to own them..." Is it trigger hapiness?

If you can supply a good, fallacy free argument in support of the Second Amendment, I'll retract my statement.

Answer 1

Okay, so you say that gun owners and gun rights supporters use nothing but fallacies to explain and support their belief in the second amendment and right to carry.

You imply that we use flawed logic and make no sense when we say having shall issue concealed carry laws reduce violent crime.

Let me turn it around, and use your anti-gun crowd logic (however flawed) to come up with 40 reasons to BAN guns...

Be sure to tell me if I am on the money, as I am using the same statements and logic for banning guns that i hear from the brady campaign and other liberal organizations.


1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

Answer 2

Name one advocate of any kind that does not use fallacy, exaggeration, misrepresentation, and absolutism to further their cause. There aren't any. Let's see:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The premise is no longer true. A well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of our country. I don't care who says it is. They are an idiot.

The thing is that I can't think of any reason why Americans should not be allowed to own guns. Many people hunt, some shoot at targets for fun, some people keep them for security reasons. All of these seem reasonable to me. The world has changed since the Bill of Rights was written. Maybe it needs revision - we can take out the silly part about militias for instance. I don't think gun laws prevent crime, but I do think that ownership of guns should be restricted by some qualifiers. I'd feel better if the people that owned them had mandatory training. Maybe we could have a qualifying test (like a driver test) to prove that you are competent with the gun. I wouldn't mind (as long as were already doing background checks) having a drug test at the time of application. This of course would not prevent a person from using a gun while on drugs, but at least it would make them clean it up long enough to get the gun. I think that we should expand the ban on ownership from felons to those convicted of or pleading guilty to misdemeanors as well. I think that good people should be able to own them. Unfortunately, I think we have to have some hoops to jump through to ensure that bad people aren't getting them through legitimate channels.

It's not really an argument for the Second Amendment, but I believe that what I've said is fallacy free. I have no problem with guns.

Answer 3

My guns have killed fewer people than Laura Bush's car. Yes, she killed someone with her driving. You can look it up.

Trigger happy? I have shot at a human being once in my 52 years - he was on the lawn of a friend's house, making a death threat by burning a cross. Unfortunately, I missed. But that was more than twenty years ago, and I'm a MUCH better shot now.

Arguments without fallacies? Fine. How about these seven?

1. Access to the means for armed self defense is a basic human right, like health care and education. Just because we don't have the second and third, why should we give up the first?

2. The police, the Mafia, the KKK, the Nazis, the New Federalists, corporate goon squads, anti-abortion Christian terrorists, Islamic fundamentalists, and every sleazy, drunken off-duty cop who wants to prove he's a man - all of them have guns. The Second Amendment allows labor, minorities, immigrants, gays, and women to have them, too.

3. I don't believe that military and police who answer to the corporate elite can be trusted with a monopoly on armed force.

4. As long as we do not have guaranteed jobs, housing and medical care, violent property crime IS guaranteed to be a major feature of life in the U.S. I do not have the money to hire an armed guard, and police are notorious about responding slowly to calls for help in poor, working-class, or minority neighborhoods.

5. I realize I can't hold off a satellite-guided missile or an Army helicopter with my rifle or handgun. However, if civilian possession of arms causes a Bush or a Clinton to hesitate even a fraction of a second in their more repressive acts, it is worth any problem those arms MIGHT cause in society.

6. I trust the average person to use weapons wisely more than I trust the officials.

7. I do not want the biggest and strongest to automatically prevail in all physical confrontations. "God didn't make men and women equal - Colonel Colt did."

I will confess, however, that maybe it's possible I went a teensy-weensy bit too far when I advocated the use of nuclear weapons by those defending abortion clinics.

Ummmm... a joke?

"Bueller? Bueller?"

***EDIT***
Mebe, while there may be individual decent cops (and who knows? I don't know you. You might be one of them) the overall role of the police is to enforce rules that allow the wealthy to push the rest of us around. That's why we constantly see police beatings and shootings of minorities, gays, labor activists - and the cops walk. If you were called out to a business where the employees were on strike, would you clear out the picketers if you were ordered to? If you say yes, you prove my point.

And Cuba actually has militias in the traditional sense. Who do you think held off the Bay of Pigs invaders? The Cuban Army wasn't able to mobilize until the 2d day.

But this is not the purpose of this posting. Wanna argue about this? Post a question and I'll be happy to answer. Right now, we agree on one thing - people have the right to keep and bear arms. Let's keep it to that right here.

Answer 4

You know what? Even if those that support the Second Amendment didn't make an argument, they would still be right. The Second Amendment is a right, not a privilege. There is no 'need based' argument required. The onus is on folks who oppose the right to keep and bear arms to justify their position, not ours. Tell us, please, why we do not need this right. And then, tell us why we don't need the rest. Oh, and next time you start spouting off about fallacies and ridiculous 'arguments', you might try making one yourself because pretty much everything you said was fallacious and ad hominem.

Answer 5

I have heard few people use those arguments that you give as an example.

What makes firearms ownership different is that it was and still is considered a God given RIGHT by the founders of the U.S. and specificaly listed in the U.S. Constuitution as such. It is not an "illogical absolute". Unlike most nations in the world, gun ownership is not a privilege that can be retracted at the will of the Government.

> Is it trigger hapiness?<

So why do you feel the need to resort to and use the same tactics as those you accuse gun advocates of using in defense of their arguments. Please prove to me that all gun owners and advocates of the 2nd Amendment are "Trigger Happy"?


Edit to "redsandrider"

Two things, as a Police Officer I am not beholden or employed by "Corporate Interests" as you seem to believe. In fact, a solid majority of Law Enforcement Officers in the U.S. support firearms ownership such as you.

What separates us is that we have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. Marxists such as you have a historical track record of taking away private ownership of firearms whenever they assume power. I find it very unlikely that the practice will change if you were to have your way. Because it sure as Hell hasn't happened wherever it's been tried!

Answer 6

Simple, the second amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Not that I presonally own a gun, but I have the right should I so choose. Where I live, I am in the extreme minority. It's my choice.
Why are the liberals so eager to claim the current administration is depriving us of our rights and yet, proving themselves time and again that they are more so guilty than anyone?

Answer 7

Same reason all political lobbyists do. To try and convince people to vote the way that will benefit their cause.

Good fallacy free argument. It's guaranteed by the Constitution of The United States of America.

Answer 8

That's how they think... that's what the small mind does when it lacks a viable argument.

I am actually pro-gun ownership but not for the reasons the small mind comes up with. I am a liberal which means I believe in the Constitution... which gives me the right to own a weapon.

Answer 9

"or illogical absolutes like "It's our right to own them..." Is it trigger hapiness?
no, it is not an illogical absolute, it is as previously mentioned, the 2nd amendment.
from what i understand, canada, who has literally no gun control, or gun control issues, has a very low death by shooting percentage.
i also agree with, if you illegalize guns, only those who can gain them illegally, will have them. criminals.
i am sure the forefathers of our country had many a debate, and did not make their decisions for the people of our country, on fallacy.

Answer 10

To start off, your argument is itself full of generalizations which are a form of fallacy. I'll make my case right here.

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The term "the people" applies to citizens of the US of A. It is also used in that capacity in the following areas; preamble, Article 1 section 2, and the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th, 17th (twice) Amendments to the constitution. Why would a term understood to mean citizens, only mean members of a militia when it appears in the 2nd Amendment. By that logic only militia members are entitled to the rights entailed by my examples above, but we both know that's not right.

A militia was a volunteer force of self supplied and self organized civilians, not the modern day National Guard which is merely a Prussian style reserve force for the military. The closest example of a colonial militia in existence today would be the Michigan militia, self supplied, self trained, self organized.

If you don't believe my interpretation simply do a grammar breakdown of the 2nd Amendment. Here it as best I can do one on this.

(subject) [verb] {objects}

A (well-regulated Militia) [being] necessary to the {security} of a {free state},

....new clause begins after the comma....

(the right of the people) to [keep] and [bear] {arms} shall not be [infringed].

....notice the locations of the words "and" and "shall not" along with the lack of further punctuation.

Hence, the amenmdment reads in more typical modern English that, The right of citizens to own and carry (fire)arms can't be infringed upon since an armed and self organized citizenry is necessary to protect a free state.

[You'll notice I rearranged the two clauses in order to try and produce a less passive voiced text by arranging them in the order they would assume had the comma not existed between "state" and "the people".]

Check out what the Supreme Court justices wrote to explain there verdict in the Dred Scott case. Here it is anyway....
"...it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, AND TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHEREVER THEY WENT." (emphasis mine, this thing needs bolded fonts.)

...fairly obvious what the Supreme court thought the the 2nd Amendment entailed in regards to citizens of the USA.

Check it out yourself...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html

Answer 11

Just because someone supports the right to bear arms, doesn't mean that they don't also support controls on ownership. Therefore your question/argument also contains fallacies.