One or the Other
Wow. I can’t believe that I never saw this before.
A person just made a comment in the Gun Control post which highlighted a logical inconsistency in the pro-gun argument… one so obvious that I am astounded that I never saw it before.
There are two highly popular, long-standing pro-gun arguments:
- If you try to ban guns, criminals will still be able to get them because gun bans are ultimately unsuccessful.
- If a dictator comes to power, they will use gun registration to confiscate all our guns and we will not be able to overthrow them.
I have heard these two arguments ever since I started reading debate on the subject, over two decades ago. Like I said, I did not see the glaring contradiction between them, and I am amazed that I never did–and more amazed that I never heard anyone else point this out.
The two statements contradict each other because one assumes that gun bans are not effective, and the other one assumes they are effective.
If a gun ban would never stop criminals from getting guns, then a dictator could never ban guns, either. But if a dictator could effectively ban our guns, then gun bans are effective. You can’t have it both ways–though it is common for right-wingers to want to do so.
Of course, in the context of my gun control post, the whole issue is moot–I never propose a gun ban, but rather effective gun control measures that would have the least restrictions on legal ownership while maximum effectiveness at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
Despite this very explicitly-stated opinion, virtually every pro-gun person who leaves a comment slams me for wanting to “ban” guns. It’s a weird phenomenon, a kind of perceptual blindness, where you say “gun control and NOT A GUN BAN,” and people come back saying, “but a gun ban would never work!” Even though I spell out conditions to the point where we would have a new Constitutional amendment saying “no gun bans,” still gun advocates assume that the whole idea is to ban guns and then they vehemently argue against that.
Maybe it’s a perceptual blindness via NRA conditioning wherein they simply presume anyone who wants to control gun sales even the smallest amount also wants to ban guns. Maybe it’s that gun control is too much more difficult for some people to debate against and so they use gun bans as a straw man. Who knows. In the end, I still have yet to hear anyone effectively argue against reasonable gun control.
Sir,
The problem with your argument here is that you have misrepresented the two purportedly “contradictory” arguments you list. First, these are not at all the only common arguments used by gun advocates, neither are they universal.
The reason these two claims are not contradictory is the fact that a differentiation is made between criminals and law-abiding citizens. Of course the truth is no one is arguing for a gun BAN (that is an unfortunate misnomer that discredits many gun advocates). Gun control (or a ban, for that matter), however, applies only to those who obey laws (or are unable to find a way around them.) While gun control may slow criminals in their quest to acquire a firearm, criminals do not care about gun laws any more than they cared about the laws they broke to become “criminals.”
The second claim works the same way. Were a dictator, totalitarian regime, etc. to attempt a gun ban, the people who would comply would be law-abiding citizens. (This is the “us” referred to in your second quote). Criminals would still be able to obtain guns, this is obvious. Either way, the people left unarmed would be the law-abiding citizens.
The two claims are not contradictory, because they inherently make a distinction between those who obey laws and those who simply do not. Who would you rather have guns in their hands? Law-abiding citizens or criminals?
“In the end, I still have yet to hear anyone effectively argue against reasonable gun control.”
I have yet to hear a reasonable argument for gun control.
If you posting is an example of the sort of irrational reasoning you are using, of course you would not understand any sort of logical argument. I suggest you learn something about logic before making yourself look foolish by such drivel as the this. The posting by Bill is correct; you have misrepresented the two arguments.
Okay, first: the statement does not mean that there are only two such arguments. It is a common literary form, when pointing out one or a few items among many, to say, “There is/are….” For example, if I write, “There are two old sayings…” do you really assume that there are no other old sayings? You presume one meaning where other meanings are far more likely. A common problem among the pro-gun crowd, as I pointed out.
Second: they sure as hell are universal. I see them in every detailed, long-standing debate on gun control, and I have been in quite a few. The first one that I point out, that gun bans are ineffective, is probably the #1 argument against “gun bans” anywhere. Hell, one of the most famous pro-gun mottoes is, “if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” What exactly did you think that meant?
The other argument is similarly pervasive when it comes to gun registration. Think not? Go and Google “‘gun registration’ tyranny” and then check out the results. I guarantee you, if I were to go to any pro-gun forum and so much as mention “registration,” I would be pelted with arguments about potential dictators. I know because I have been there, friend.
Are you new at this?
Um, strangely enough, you’re wrong in several ways on this one. There actually are people who argue for gun bans. They are simply in the minority, but they are definitely out there. I am actually rather surprised that you don’t know about this; it suggests that you actually are new to this debate. What discredits many gun advocates is not that they think some people want to ban guns, it is that they seem to think that everyone wants to ban guns; that they respond to any suggestion of the merest hint of “gun control” as if it meant a total gun ban was being proposed, or was the next logical step. See the comments to my gun control post for multiple examples of this.
Tell that to the thousands of wanted criminals who are now in jail because of gun control provisions like background checks which got them nabbed.
Furthermore, don’t look now, but you are saying that gun control is ultimately ineffective, which is pretty much equal to saying that a gun ban would be ineffective. An argument which you just claimed was not universal. I know–you aren’t the “universe.” I’m just saying…
But a key point here is the efficacy of gun control, which you say only “may” “slow criminals” down. This gets rather deeper into various aspects of the debate, as well as to the core reasons for gun control. One is that gun control lacks efficacy primarily because it is not universal; all one has to do is cross a state line–or even a county line sometimes–and gun laws can be avoided (thank the NRA for this). If, as I outlined in my original post, there were a universal set of gun control laws, it would not be so simple to “find a way around them.”
Even with the porous gaps that now exist, gun control does have an effect. As I pointed out, background checks have served to incarcerate thousands of criminals; as for the ones who weren’t incarcerated but were stopped, a certain percentage likely gave up that point. However small that subset may be, that alone is worth quite a bit. And as for the rest, I fail to see the problem with slowing down criminals trying to get guns. Should we allow them unfettered access?
Furthermore, waiting periods calm tempers. Gun safety laws help stem accidental gun deaths. And if other gun control measures, such as gun registration and ammunition tagging, are enacted, it will serve to blunt the ability of criminals to get away with their crimes, and make the police far more effective at catching them and putting them safely away. Gun licensing, requiring training, would similarly help bring down accidental or wrongful injuries and deaths, and would cement the concept of responsibility in gun owners. So to dismiss gun control as only “maybe” “slowing down” criminals is misrepresentative and/or demonstrates a lack of understanding of what gun control is and what it is intended to do.
These, of course, are all secondary issues which I nonetheless wanted to address because you brought them up, even if indirectly. Your argument is a bit muddled here because your central argument is about two statements on gun bans, but you bring up gun control here and weave the two of them together. However, your main point, I believe, was:
In saying this, you are completely misreading the second of the two arguments, which I specified was, “If a dictator comes to power, they will use gun registration to confiscate all our guns and we will not be able to overthrow them.” You make the erroneous assumption that the “tyrannical dictator” argument is being made to argue that people oppressed by a dictator would have no means of warding off home invaders. That one I’ll discuss here:
The primary idea of the pro-gun “tyrannical dictator” argument is not how we would not have home protection under a dictator. In my decades of debating gun advocates, I have never once heard that tack proffered as an argument. Never. The argument is that guns in the hands of the populace would be necessary in order to overthrow said dictator. I made that explicitly clear, yet you ignored that wholly and made up your own argument to defend. (That, by the way, is called a “straw man.”)
In the overthrow-a-dictator scenario, no one who wants a gun for that purpose would be a “law-abiding citizen.” This “dictator” argument has its roots in the claim that Second Amendment keep-and-bear principles are just as necessary today in securing our freedoms as they were in the days of the revolution–another reason why the argument commonly surfaces in gun discussions, as a means of bolstering the relevancy of the Second Amendment.
And might I say, as an aside, that I find it slightly disturbing that you would see such merit in abiding by the laws of a tyrannical dictator….
Ah, the old either-or fallacy, following a string of other fallacies that set up a straw-man theme. The Logic instructor at my college will love this one when I give it to him to use in his class.
This is even more precious a logical contradiction because in that last question, you presume the assertion of a gun ban–the very argument that you yourself said “discredits many gun advocates”! Lovely!
BobG:
Thank you for your in-depth, detailed, logical, and fully-evidenced analysis of the argument at hand. I enjoyed it greatly.
There are reasons why many gun owners hear “gun control” and “gun ban” as the same thing. Not just ’cause we are crazy.
1 – There ARE people out there trying to ban all guns.
2 – Many reasonable sounding laws are NOT. Witness the “Tavern Bans” going around right now.
3 – The term ‘Assault Weapon’. If you do not know why it is so offensive, run it by any gun enthusiast.
4 – The term ‘Sniper Rifle’. If you do not know why it is so offensive, run it by any gun enthusiast.
Interesting to note that you mention a new amendment guaranteeing individual gun rights. If a well crafted amendment were created (By the NRA? That would work well) the opposition to reasonable gun control laws would be GUTTED.
Oh, don’t get me wrong; I don’t think such people are “crazy”; just blinded by single-mindedness. Note that I propose nothing even close to a gun ban in my post, and yet I get many people coming back with arguments against “gun bans.” Responding so passionately and reflexively to individual terms instead of the reading and responding rationally to specifics of an argument is, you have to admit, very close to the definition of “knee-jerk.”
Um, yeah. If you read my longish response to a comment above, you’ll see that I make this point myself. My counterpoint is that such people are definitely in the minority. It’s not that gun-banners don’t exist, it’s that their numbers and influence are so wildly overstated that it clouds the argument–which, I would suggest, is the entire point of the pro-gun lobbies exacerbating the debate by throwing around such hyperbole. Kind of like the pro-life crowd trying to frame abortion as “partial birth” abortions, or people opposed to gay rights characterizing laws prohibiting discrimination against gays as “special privileges” and gay marriage as a “threat” to marriage everywhere.
In short, gun control can be effective and important, but dragging gun bans into the picture is irrelevant and inflammatory. It’s the classic straw man–if they can’t argue against reasonable gun control, they try to paint the issue as one of a gun ban instead. Also, I note your point is about people trying to ban “all” guns–but none of your specific examples come close to detailing total gun bans. The total gun ban is the ultimate bogeyman–it scares people, but is so far from an actual threat as to be completely irrelevant to any gun control argument.
As to your next three points, I do not understand all of them fully (you provide no details, so I cannot understand your specific objections), but I would suspect that many fall into the category of “politicians trying to look like they are doing something when in fact they are being stupid.” Still–
I am currently not residing in the U.S. Please explain what a “Tavern ban” is, why it is unreasonable, and exactly how common they are (how many states/cities). When I search for “Tavern ban,” I get smoking laws. Do you refer to laws where a state allows concealed carry laws but exclude sporting events, taverns, courthouses, and the like? If you mean bans on guns in bars, is it not right to question the wisdom of allowing firearms into an establishment where the primary purpose is to loosen inhibitions, cloud judgment, and dull the senses? And if only taverns are objectionable, then why not sporting events, for example? If I am missing the point of the issue, kindly elucidate.
Again, I may be missing something. I know that liberals tend to object to such bans because they are spotty at best–full of compromises and holes. The basic principle, as I understand it, is to ban weapons that are designed more for killing more people more quickly–the rationale for banning automatic rifles, for example. But I do not claim to know the complaints you refer to, so please fill me in on those as well.
Again, I have not heard of this before, but a Google search brings up far more on this. The technical term refers to guns made primarily for hunting humans, but I presume that the objection is that it is used to refer to a broader range of guns that would include legitimate hunting guns. For this one, I would ask how many bills banning “sniper rifles” have passed into law.
It is never difficult to find extreme examples. The question is, are the bans or attempts at bans so common and so successful that there is truly a danger of people not being able to buy the weapons they need for hunting and home protection? I would ask you to make that case, if any.
My point precisely. Though I would not approve of the NRA drafting it–the NRA is the ACLU of the Second Amendment, in that they will represent almost any weapons issue, no matter how vile or hateful, on the principle that not doing so would lead to the degradation of the right overall. They would draft an amendment that would completely outlaw any gun control whatsoever.
You know, after I posted my last comment I realized the tone of my post was not at all what I was trying for. I did not mean to present it as an argument with what you were saying, but rather to share some of the reasons some people have for resistance to gun control, and especially why people respond to gun control and gun bans the same way.
I was trying to write something more intelligent, but I have come to the painful realization that I have been awake for far too long. I will try to put together something better tomorrow.
OK, I’ll try again now that I can type straight. I am just going to address part of the issue here, if you are interested I will expand to the rest (I do not want to hi-jack your thread).
The first major objection to the term ‘Assault Weapon’ is that it has no specific definition. An accurate (if unflattering) definition would be ‘Any gun that looks scary enough to make a good press release’. The lack of a formal definition is disturbing because anything can be swept under the rug of ‘assault weapon’ and banned. California recently added all .50 BMG rifles to their ban, these meet none of the characteristics that you would associate with the term. Their only objectionable trait is that they are the most powerful rifles commonly available. Will the ban the 2nd most powerful next? The 3rd? They can call *anything* an ‘assault weapon’. It is actually hard to have a real discussion about the subject, just because you constantly have to try and figure out what guns exactly someone is talking about.
The second major objection is based on use of these guns in crime. Weapons labeled as ‘assault weapons’ are used in about 1%-1.5% of gun crimes. Given that there are only a few categories of guns, that means that other than muzzle loading antiques, ‘assault weapons’ are probably the *least* likely type of gun to use in a crime. The .50 BMG that California recently banned may have been used in one, maybe two crimes *ever* (they are incredibly poorly suited for criminal use). Think about that. How can we believe that anyone who is trying to ban them will ever be willing to stop at a reasonable compromise?
Note that despite what is often suggested by activists, none of this has any relation to automatic weapons (machine guns). They have been effectively banned since 1986.
As far as ‘Sniper Rifles” go, it is not a matter of being similar to hunting rifles. They are *exactly* the same as hunting rifles. Last I checked, the current Marine sniper rifle of choice is just a fancied up version of one of the most popular deer rifles in America. And no, they haven’t managed to pass any laws against them, but that isn’t the same thing as saying they haven’t tried. Or that they won’t try again.
A last thought on why the use of sensationalist labels is so alarming to gun rights people – look up the term “Offensive Weapon” and it’s role in the UK’s gun ban.
(I should note that I am not saying that *you* support these things, I *am* however saying that any reasonable solution will have to address the people who do.)