Quick- what do you say when--

This is a discussion on Quick- what do you say when-- within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; 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 ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Quick- what do you say when--

  1. #1
    Member Array divkat9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    53

    Quick- what do you say when--

    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?

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array Longbow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Montana, USA
    Posts
    396
    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.
    "Planning to draw and chamber a round after TSHTF is like planning to fasten your seatbelt after you see the other guy run a stopsign..."

    Professional hand engraver.
    To see full picture of knife in Avatar click here

  4. #3
    Member
    Array Beretta1526's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    ...on your six (cFL)
    Posts
    82
    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've got a mind like a steel trap... things wander in, and get mangled."
    -Fabbrica d'Armi P. Beretta, dal 1526

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,226
    I agree... Call her on it to provide evidence to back up her statement.
    "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.
    (L. Ruby, "Logic an introduction," 131)

    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).
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array havegunjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,206

    Oh is that so?

    Quote Originally Posted by divkat9 View Post
    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?

    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.
    DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONtestING THE VOTE.

    Certified Instructor for Minnesota Carry Permit
    NRA Pistol and Personal Protection Insrtuctor
    Utah Permit Certified Instructor

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,045
    I also heard that 85% of statistics are made up on the spot...

  8. #7
    Member Array d.40v's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGguy229 View Post
    I also heard that 85% of statistics are made up on the spot...
    I thought it was 42.7%.

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array Timmy Jimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    759
    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??
    Last edited by Timmy Jimmy; April 18th, 2007 at 04:56 PM. Reason: to add the foot note
    Timmy Jimmy

    If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.

    "Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."

  10. #9
    Member Array MD_Willington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    SE WA State
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by divkat9 View Post
    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?

    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




  11. #10
    Member Array teknoid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Lower Slobovia
    Posts
    226
    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"

  12. #11
    Senior Member Array cmidkiff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    835
    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.
    Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. It's worth it.

  13. #12
    Ex Member Array dwolsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    266
    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.

  14. #13
    VIP Member
    Array Miggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Miami-Dade, FL
    Posts
    6,258
    Quote Originally Posted by divkat9 View Post
    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?
    My Answer: Please show me your data.

    99.99% of the times they will shut up or said they read it somewhere but can't provide the info.
    You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
    Randy Cain.

    Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
    Signed: Me!

  15. #14
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,504

    Don't Bother...

    Quote Originally Posted by divkat9 View Post
    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?
    Liars figure and figures lie...

    ret
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  16. #15
    Member Array divkat9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    53
    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

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Looking for a quick acess/quick open safe
    By Pkupmn98 in forum Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: July 7th, 2010, 02:20 PM
  2. That was quick.
    By Barbary in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 30th, 2008, 06:48 AM
  3. TN was quick
    By tnxd9er in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: July 1st, 2007, 09:50 AM
  4. Quick on/quick off OWB for P3AT?
    By sevesteen in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2007, 07:50 AM
  5. quick ?
    By rperillo in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 4th, 2006, 12:16 AM

Search tags for this page

law of rationality and evasions thereof

,

the laws of rationality and evasion thereof

,

this evasion has the following structure: jones says that p is true. when asked, why? he answers, ?because x says so?.

Click on a term to search for related topics.