Having a debate and my opponent says she took a class from her police dept and they told her most weapons are used against the person that has it when an intruder is involved.
Now I know this is incorrect, but how can I back it up with facts?
Printable View
Having a debate and my opponent says she took a class from her police dept and they told her most weapons are used against the person that has it when an intruder is involved.
Now I know this is incorrect, but how can I back it up with facts?
I would call her on it. Tell her you don't think this is true at all and that she needs to back it up with facts, the person making the claim that something is true is responsible for backing up there claims. not you for challenging it.
Think about the statement good and hard. It's true. The term 'weapons' is a very broad one. If you research it, you will most likely find that a very high percentage of the 'weapons' it is referring to are baseball bats, golf clubs, etc. and a very low percentage of that are firearms.
Do the research, then challenge it. Right now, without facts to back it up it's heresay and shouldn't be admitted into a debate.
.
I agree... Call her on it to provide evidence to back up her statement.(L. Ruby, "Logic an introduction," 131)Quote:
"The Law of Rationality and Evasions Thereof"
...An argument is a discourse containing inference, in which we say,
"This is so because of that." But the inference may be sound or
unsound. We will be concerned with the principles of sound reasoning.
Before proceeding to the principles, however, let us consider the aim of
logical thinking and the manner which this aim may be frustrated.
Every person who is interested in logical thinking accepts what we shall
call the "law of rationality," which maybe stated as follows: We ought
to justify our conclusions by adequate evidence.
The meaning of adequacy will be explained in detail as we proceed. Let
it suffice here to say that by "adequate evidence" we mean evidence
which is good and sufficient in terms of the kind of proof which is
required. There are occasions when we require conclusive proof, as in
mathematics, and there are occasions when it is sufficient to establish
the probability of a given conclusion, as in weather prediction. But in
all cases the evidence must be adequate to its purpose. ...
Though few, if any, will have the temerity or the foolishness to
challenge the law of rationality, it is often evaded. Evasion usually
occurs through carelessness, but it may also occur through design. In
this section we shall note some of the typical ways in which the
obligation to support beliefs by adequate evidence is evaded.
In every argument we find the assertion of a belief, which we shall call
"P," (for "probandum," or proposition to be proved). Someone says that
P is true. When we ask the speaker, "Why," or "What reasons do you have
for believing that P is true?" We ask for evidence. We then expect
adequate evidence to the question at issue, and it should be good and
sufficient evidence. In the rest of this chapter we shall be concerned
with the evasion of the requirement that evidence be furnished. The
proverb says that we ask for bread and were given stones. Paraphrased,
we shall find that we asked for evidence and received [, instead, some
form of a typical evasive pseudo-argument, such as the argument called,
"the appeal to authority," "the appeal to emotion," "the appeal to
ignorance," etc. etc.]
1. The Appeal to Authority
This evasion has the following structure: Jones says that P is true.
When asked, Why? He answers, "Because X says so." Now, P (the
probandum) should be proved by adequate evidence, but the fact that X
says it is true is not evidence for its truth. The citing of authority
in this bald manner is an evasion of the law of rationality.
Now, to say that "the appeal to authority" is an evasion of the law of
rationality is not to say that we are guilty of this evasion whenever we
cite an authority for our beliefs. There is no doubt that sensible
people must rely on authorities for many, if not most, of their
important decisions and for the beliefs on which these decisions are
based.
When a physician tells us that we need an operation we relation his
authority. We accept the authority of the weatherman that rain is
probable. We have neither the time nor sufficient knowledge to
investigate the evidence for all our beliefs. The point, however, is
this: No belief is true merely because someone says so. It is true
because of the evidence in its behalf. When we trust an authority, we
merely place credence in the fact that he has evidence. And if we whish
to know, rather than merely to believe, we should inquire into the
evidence on which his conclusions are based. . . .
In general, three questions should be kept in mind when considering the
statements of an authority: Is the cited authority an authority in the
specific field in which he has mad is pronouncements? Does the
authority have evidence to prove his statements? Do all qualified
investigations agree on the general soundness of the type of proof
offered? A great physicist may be an authority in the field of nuclear
physics, but that does not qualify him to be dogmatic in the field of
religion. A man may be very critical in one field and very uncritical
in another. ...[W]e accept the statements of astronomers that the mean
distance of the sun from the earth is close to 93 million miles, because
they are authorities with respect to such matters, their evidence is
available to all, and all qualified investigators agree on the soundness
of their methods. We accept our physician's statements that we should
take medicine for our ailments for similar reasons (or at least we
believe these reasons to hold). But even the acceptance of competent
authority is never a substitute for proof.
When the authorities are in conflict, i.e., when "the doctors disagree,"
tow courses of action are open to us. If the problem is a purely
theoretical one, and we are not required to take immediate action, we
should suspend judgment. If action is required, we should accept the
authority who appears to be most competent and trustworthy.
The appeal to authority is often call the "Argumentum Verecundiam," a
learned-sounding Latin phrase which means the "appeal to reverence." A
revered authority or tradition is often regarded as infallible, so that
anyone who disagrees is in some sense disloyal to that which out to be
revered. ...Reverence is not a substitute for evidential proof.
The fact that "everybody knows that this is so" is no proof. The masses
of men have frequently been mistaken. They once thought that the earth
was flat. They still believe that the speed of falling objects depends
on its weight. The voice of the people is not necessarily the voice of
God on all questions.
2. The Appeal to Emotion
The structure of this evasion: "The proposition 'P' is true."
Why?-Because I (or you) have strong feelings concerning it." But strong
feelings don not constitute evidence for the truth of a proposition.
The fact that people have emotional attachments to religious and
political doctrines does not make the doctrines true.
3. The Appeal to Ignorance
[The structure of this evasion:] "P is true." Why? "Because you can't
disprove it." This type of evasion often occurs in discussion which
involve religious faith. ... [The] inability to disprove is not
equivalent to proof. Only evidence gives us proof.
P.s., I provided one detailed explanation of one of the more common
evasions of the Law of Rationality, and a brief description of a couple
of others. (Unfortunately, there are countless ways to avoid being
rational, so if you want more, you'll have to read the book).
Quote:
Originally Posted by divkat9
When has this ever happened? It happens to the police a lot, but when has it happened to a civilian protecting themselves? If it happened so much wouldn't we see this in the news? Believe me the media would be all over a story like this.
What exactly was the class she took on? Sounds like the old, we are the experts and you lowly sheep can't do anything without us crap to me. Tell her to read, "The Seven Myths of Gun Control" by Richard Poe. It has a very good story of one woman that was attacked and how the EM people had to literally pry the gun from her hand when treating her numerous injuries. The gun was the only thing that would protect her and she was not going to let it go.
I also heard that 85% of statistics are made up on the spot...
I thought it was 42.7%.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGguy229
The following game from GunFacts 2006
Myth: You are more likely to be injured or killed using a gun for self-defense
Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%
Footnote: this came from the British Home Office (not a very gun friendly organization)
Does this meet your needs??
Quote:
Originally Posted by divkat9
They all claim that, there were a few rapes at the WSU campus and "ol wiggum" here states that a perp will take a pistol away from you, he stated this after a few females expressed an interest in obtaining pistols for protection and CPL
http://www.thesimpsonsquotes.com/ima...andingtall.gif
:aargh4:
You can't back it up with facts. There hasn't been a study done that takes all situations into consideration. Neither position can be proven, but as others have stated- if she makes that assertion, it is up to her to prove it. That isn't possible. For every instance of this happening, you could easily produce 100 of a different outcome.
You might show her this: http://ellegon.com/features/data/something/
Particularly the section labeled "The Mystery of the Nonexistent Reports"
Yeah, right... That's why cops don't carry firearms. If they need one, they just take it away from the criminal they are confronting. I suppose we're wasting our money supplying our soldiers with rifles, as well. They could just pick one up from the field of battle when they get there.
You're arguing against a statistic that someone pulled out of their neither regions. Trying to come up with a real stat that validated that position, pro or con, is going to be impossible.
Actually, it's not that hard to take a handgun away from someone who doesn't know how to use it properly. Both revolvers and autos can be easily disabled by grabbing them the right way; this was demonstrated to me in my CCW class. For revolvers, grab them on top so that you clamp the chambers so they can't rotate. For autos, just put your hand over the barrel (!) and push back (grabbing the slide on the top may be better).
The bottom line here is: don't do like some stupid people do and use a gun at close range to threaten. If you're going to draw it and the threat is within arm's reach, shoot! You may not have a chance if you wait.
My Answer: Please show me your data.Quote:
Originally Posted by divkat9
99.99% of the times they will shut up or said they read it somewhere but can't provide the info.
Liars figure and figures lie...Quote:
Originally Posted by divkat9
ret:urla9ub:
Excellent info folks, thanks! I took apart her argument and she has all but disappeared from the debate. And to boot, it looks like 2 or 3 have grown interested in shooting and concealed carry:danceban: