SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!!
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (36713)5/3/1999 12:03:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit  Read Replies (3) of 108807
 
Since we are talking formal syllogisms, let's construct a portion of a formal argument:

1: The presence of guns is a necessary condition for gunshot violence.

Therefore:

2: If guns did not exist there would be no gunshot violence.

Proponents of gun control argue correctly that the conclusion is inescapable. The problem really lies in the nature of the relationship between the number of fire arms and the level of violence. Proponents of gun control argue that the relationship is direct (though not necessarily linear). At first blink this makes logical sense, although good data are lacking. Opponents of gun control have yet to make an argument that makes any sense concerning the relationship between the number of guns and the level of firearms-related violence. Instead, they have resorted to the claim that people cause gun shot violence, not guns.

In the interest of fair play, then I will modify the necessary condition to read:

1: The presence of guns in the hands of people is a necessary condition for gunshot violence.

Therefore:

2: If guns did not exist in the hands of people there would be no gunshot violence.

Lest anybody think this is a straw man, it is not. It simply lists one constraining condition. Certainly, there are others like the availability of ammunition.

If I were to construct a predictive model for gunshot violence it would include many factors, but the existence of additional factors in no way eliminates the notion that guns in the hands of people is a necessary condition for gun-related violence. It is still a necessary condition

It seems to me that if we want to decrease gun-related violence we must at least seek to reduce the presence of guns in the hands of those people most likely to commit acts of gun-related violence. I think that conclusion is inescapable.

Assuming that I have even the most ardent 2nd Amendment devotee still agreeing with me (albeit grudgingly), I will go further.

The issue is really one of balance: those who wish no gun control are unwilling to give up their freedom to own firearms for the certainty that total elimination of firearms must inexorably lead to an elimination of firearms related violence. Therefore, gun control opponents are forced to argue on only two bases if they are to be logical:

1. Eliminating guns from the hands of those most likely to cause firearms violence is impossible; and/or
2. Unfettered private ownership of guns represents a greater benefit to the populace than its cost to society.

One of my frustrations in dealing with the issue is the shifting argument. It would be helpful if opponents clearly focused on one or the other argument.

CTC
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News