UNC -- Gratuitous anti-gun propaganda - Page 2

UNC -- Gratuitous anti-gun propaganda

This is a discussion on UNC -- Gratuitous anti-gun propaganda within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Guns have moving parts. Wait, guns are restricted? Where? In NC you have to get a purchase permit from the Sheriff, but I hardly call ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25

Thread: UNC -- Gratuitous anti-gun propaganda

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,156
    Guns have moving parts.

    Wait, guns are restricted? Where? In NC you have to get a purchase permit from the Sheriff, but I hardly call that a restriction. More a pain in the butt.

    Sarcasm off.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!


  2. #17
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,080

    re: maddyfish

    Quote Originally Posted by maddyfish View Post
    That's par for the course. My Statistics course textbook is a flaming pile of lib garbage.
    Uh, statistics is a mathematically based science. You should be learning topics such as the difference between continuously variable data and categorical data, how to mathematically test hypotheses using both types of data; how to design experiments, linear regression, multiple regression, analysis of variance, probability, normal distribution and other distributions and which tests of hypotheses apply to each, non-parametric statistical methods used with categorical data for example.

    If you aren't being taught the mathematical basis for these things or the application of statistical methods to hypothesis testing, and how to use these procedures, you are: 1) either not in a statistics course 2) not understanding what is being taught to you.

    What statistics textbook are you calling "lib garbage?"

    You are half way through a semester now and should have some idea of what the course is about. Politics it ain't, and there is no way to make the subject matter political.

    Something is wrong.

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array chiefjason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    Guns have moving parts.

    Wait, guns are restricted? Where? In NC you have to get a purchase permit from the Sheriff, but I hardly call that a restriction. More a pain in the butt.

    Sarcasm off.
    Depends on the sheriff. In my county it's just a pain in the butt. In others it is a full blown restriction and is not issued just because you pass the background check. The bill to remove it last year did not go anywhere.
    I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!

    "Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Agreed, the author is correct.

    But the author also leaves out context.
    Context as to how the analogy was used to start.

    Most commonly the context of a persons making such a statement is toward a firearm/gun being used to intimidate/injure a single person...Not a crowd of people (!).

    An average person would not think that a hammer would be functional to attack a crowd of people.
    Duh!

    But for same purpose an automobile would be and commonly is used to same net effect. But those too are to a degree restricted.
    But items that are not include; fire (!), gasoline, gasses & fumes/vapors (i.e. ever been trapped in an elevator after somebody ripped a fart...WMD!) and other more _functional_ means to achieve the goal of crowd intimidation/injury.

    The authors assessment is technically correct and true.
    But the authors underlying pointed statement as per this example is incorrect and false.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  5. #20
    Member Array delford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefjason View Post
    Depends on the sheriff. In my county it's just a pain in the butt. In others it is a full blown restriction and is not issued just because you pass the background check. The bill to remove it last year did not go anywhere.
    Down in Mecklenburg County, NC, the Sheriff is amenable to concealed carry and once I did the paperwork I got my CCP in 35 days.

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array Rustynuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    777
    You don't have to reload hammers though, that makes them MORE dangerous!

  7. #22
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    Agreed, the author is correct.

    But the author also leaves out context.
    Context as to how the analogy was used to start.

    Most commonly the context of a persons making such a statement is toward a firearm/gun being used to intimidate/injure a single person...Not a crowd of people (!).

    An average person would not think that a hammer would be functional to attack a crowd of people.
    Duh!

    But for same purpose an automobile would be and commonly is used to same net effect. But those too are to a degree restricted.
    But items that are not include; fire (!), gasoline, gasses & fumes/vapors (i.e. ever been trapped in an elevator after somebody ripped a fart...WMD!) and other more _functional_ means to achieve the goal of crowd intimidation/injury.

    The authors assessment is technically correct and true.
    But the authors underlying pointed statement as per this example is incorrect and false.

    - Janq
    BINGO!

    Even the writer's initial statement is stated of the example in the singular,

    Example: "Guns are like hammers—they're both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone.
    [emphasis added]
    In addition, he/she falls into other common logical fallacies, which the paper points out.

    1) Appeal to ignorance

    From the paper
    Appeal to ignorance
    Definition: In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, "Look, there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue."
    By taking the issue out of context the authority appears to be saying that the "weak analogy" fails -- therefore you should accept my conclusion on this issue that

    we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance.
    This "appeal to ignorance" ignores all other evidence that might support the RKBA, rather than some undefined level of restriction.


    2) The

    Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance.
    is also a Red herring moving the issue from the singular "someone" to "kill large numbers of people at a distance." Rather akin to Janq out of out context.

    From the paper:

    Red herring
    Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what's really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.
    in this case returning to the issue of the strength of the analogy, not the policy of the regulation of guns.

    3) In fact I think the entire example quoted in the OP is a Straw man. As Janq and others have pointed out, there are stronger analogies, which could be made.

    Again from the paper:

    Straw man
    Definition: One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down. But just as being able to knock down a straw man, or a scarecrow, isn't very impressive, defeating a watered-down version of your opponents' argument isn't very impressive either.

    4) What is suggested in the OP quote could also be seen a type of False dichotomy.

    Again from the paper:

    False dichotomy
    Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. But often there are really many different options, not just two—and if we thought about them all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends!
    In this case, what the writer is suggested is there are only two choices for the reader (an undefined level of regulation, which might in his/her mind be outright banning or draconian rules like DC's vs. no regulation) he/she then uses the Strawman to appear to have eliminated one of the choices (ignoring potential other justifications) and declares victory by the singular, bold, naked statement:

    Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance.
    Without (again from the paper):

    1. using good premises (ones you have good reason to believe are both true and relevant to the issue at hand),
    2. making sure your premises provide good support for your conclusion (and not some other conclusion, or no conclusion at all),
    3. checking that you have addressed the most important or relevant aspects of the issue (that is, that your premises and conclusion focus on what is really important to the issue you're arguing about), and
    4. not making claims that are so strong or sweeping that you can't really support them.
    All of which is gratuitous anti-gun propaganda relying of still another of the fallacies discussed in the paper:

    5)
    Appeal to authority
    Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we're discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn't much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.
    In this case, the authority of the Professor who provides university-wide instructions on in an on-line tutoring resource for those who

    may have been told that you need to make your arguments more logical or stronger. And you may have worried that you simply aren't a logical person or wondered what it means for an argument to be strong.
    carries the implied suggestion that you need help because you "simply aren't a logical person" where as I an expert on logic pronounce:

    we restrict [whatever that means] guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance.[emphasis added]
    The the very use of the majestic plural (pluralis maiestatis in Latin) is further evidence of his/her suggestion of authority and appeal to that alleged authority.

    The use of a plural pronoun can be used refer to a single person holding a high office, such as a monarch, bishop, pope, or university rector. It is also called the royal pronoun, the royal "we" the victorian "we", the editorial "we". etc. The more general word for the use of we to refer to oneself is nosism, from the Latin nos. It is most commonly used to denote the excellence, power, and dignity of the person that speaking or writing.

    In pluralis maiestatis a speaker refers to himself using a grammatical number other than the singular (i.e., in plural or, where attested, dual form) to project authority.

    In a frequently-repeated story, United States Navy Admiral Hyman G. Rickover told a subordinate who used the royal we: "Three groups are permitted that usage: pregnant women, royalty, and schizophrenics. Which one are you?"

    Mark Twain once made a similar remark: "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we.'"

    I would not be ranting, had he/she simply stated that the hammer/gun analogy was weak because tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone failed to address significant differences in practical use/application and therefore the analogy does not support the conclusion.

    It is when he/she pontificates that a logical person such as the writer of this "tutorial on logical arguments" declares that undefined restrictions are logical that I see gratuitous anti-gun propaganda being fed to unsuspecting students.

    Last edited by DaveH; April 3rd, 2010 at 09:51 AM. Reason: added "majestic plural " point or rather returned it as I had written some of the sort last night and cut it.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  8. #23
    Ex Member Array Cold Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    West Carrollton, Ohio
    Posts
    1,059
    Note: View and listen to and read about the usual pouting and shouting concerning these white Chrisitian militia groups who have caused very little actual harm, but alway have kook groups, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, constantly alarmed, because it is their job and the taxpayers they rob. If the old-media doesn't rant, they always manage to give it that same old slant, those folks who smile instead of profile, except when it comes to white people who like to have fun with guns.

  9. #24
    Member Array DIXIETWISTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ice Man View Post
    That looks like a scary assuault nail gun! It has a drum mag like Al Capone's Thompson! Ban It!!!

    This is the problem with sheeple going off to college without first having the ability to think for themself.
    You may not like guns. You may choose not to own one. That is your right.
    You might not believe in God. That is your choice.
    However, if someone breaks into your home at 3AM the first two things you are going to do are:
    1) Call someone with a gun.
    2)Pray they get there in time." - A wise man

  10. #25
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,080

    Dave H---Very very nice post

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    I would not be ranting, had he/she simply stated that the hammer/gun analogy was weak because tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone failed to address significant differences in practical use/application and therefore the analogy does not support the conclusion.

    It is when he/she pontificates that a logical person such as the writer of this "tutorial on logical arguments" declares that undefined restrictions are logical that I see gratuitous anti-gun propaganda being fed to unsuspecting students.

    Very very nice post. Enjoyed reading it.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Sponsored 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. Virginia's 2010 Lobby Day -- the anti's propaganda
    By DaveH in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 28th, 2010, 12:46 PM
  2. The newest anti-gun propaganda
    By paramedic70002 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: January 9th, 2010, 07:27 PM
  3. Gratuitous Gun Pron
    By aepilotjim in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: March 24th, 2008, 12:49 AM
  4. Beware Of The New Anti Propaganda
    By ronwill in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: October 28th, 2007, 02:20 PM
  5. Anti Bush propaganda film.
    By grnzbra in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: December 13th, 2005, 07:14 PM

Search tags for this page

anti gun fallacy
,

anti gun propaganda

,
editorial that uses red herring propaganda
,
guns are like hammers fallacy
,
guns are like hammers?they?re both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill
,
guns cars analogy weak
,
gunsandhammers beretta
,
hammer vs gun fallacy
,
hammers gun analogy
,
logical fallacies unc
,
unc propaganda
,
unc used cars
Click on a term to search for related topics.