40 Reasons to Support Gun Control

Post Reply New Topic

Knocking down strawmen is quite easy. I should first link you here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

Go to the "Rhetorical Use" section. In fact, I shall list the kinds of strawmen arguments there are. I shall demonstrate how your arguments are strawmen knocker-downers and give the numbers-type of strawman I think they best fit. Note that this will be rather lengthy.

"The straw-man rhetorical technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents actually offer. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent.

One can set up a straw man in several different ways:

[listed by number-type]

1. Present only a portion of the opponent's arguments (often a weak one), refute it, and pretend that all of their arguments have been refuted.
2. Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
3. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
4. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute their arguments, and pretend that every argument for that position has been refuted.
5. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation."

"OK, fair dos.... Having reread your post, you only made exactly the same points as ljbouchard anyway, so my replys to their post can apply to yours too. You can do me a favour and do the cutting and pasting for me if you like - it'd be much appreciated." --TAFKASH
Quoted Kittymom, "Don't bother. I've come to the conclusion that we're all being trolled and I for one don't feel like providing you with entertainment anymore."

I believe that this fits strawman number-type 4. Ljbouchard I believe did not defend his points nearly as well as Kittymom and Vits2k did. Look at the case of the alternative-uses argument made by both Ljbouchard and Kittymom:

"First off, if the above was true, then I would be all for gun control. A gun is a tool in which one aspect is to kill people. Other uses of the tool include gathering food and clothing and recreation (target practice). To say that a guns only purpose is to kill people is outlandish at best. There are many other uses." --Ljbouchard

"Guns are designed to propel projectiles with accuracy and at a high rate of speed. They can be used for target practice (many are designed for exactly this), for killing animals (whether for sport or food), for shooting down wasp nests, to punch a hole in a barrel, etc. The vast majority of guns are *never* used to kill or even injure a human being. Remove military use of guns and it drops to infinitesimal amounts. There are 80,000,000 (yes, that's 80 million) guns owned by private citizens in the US, there are about 9600 homicides (which includes justifiable homicide) committed with a gun in the US in the last year for which I have statistics. That's 0.012% of guns used to kill a human being. What the heck are the other 99.978% of guns being used for?" --Kittymom

Response to Ljbouchard's statement:

"ljbouchard wrote:
....Other uses of the tool include gathering food....


Crikey - you must have one hell of a secure local store..... Or do you maybe use your gun as a crowbar to prise over-frozen items out of the chiller cabinet, perhaps?

ljbouchard wrote:
....and clothing.....


In New York? Confused Perhaps if you liked someone's trainers and wanted to mug them for them......

How many people do you ever see wandering around wearing self-killed bloody dear carcasses, anyway??????? Do you live at the Little Big Horn or something?

ljbouchard wrote:
....and recreation (target practice).....


Since when does "I do it for recreation" validate the performance of an act? I like running people over in the High Street..... Could I call that my "recreation" and get away with it? Of course not..... A morally unsupportable act cannot be justified in the name of entertainment..... Get real...... I think you need to find yourself a new hobby mate, unfortunately.....

ljbouchard wrote:
To say that a guns only purpose is to kill people is outlandish at best. There are many other uses.


I hope you don't intend stirring my tea with yours then.... I won't thank you for it, you know.....
You responded to Ljbouchard but not Kittymom, despite Kittymom posting more than two hours before you posted your response to Ljbouchard." --TAFKASH

You refused to respond to Kittymom's variation of Ljbouchard's point, despite it being of much higher quality. Kittymom even gave statistics demonstrating that most guns are not used to kill, which Ljbouchard failed to provide. Saying that Kittymom's argument is "exactly the same" as Ljbouchard's is a strawman.

-----------------

"Since when does "I do it for recreation" validate the performance of an act? I like running people over in the High Street..... Could I call that my "recreation" and get away with it? Of course not..... A morally unsupportable act cannot be justified in the name of entertainment..... Get real...... I think you need to find yourself a new hobby mate, unfortunately....." --TAFKASH
Quoted Ljbouchard, "First off, if the above was true, then I would be all for gun control. A gun is a tool in which one aspect is to kill people. Other uses of the tool include gathering food and clothing and recreation (target practice). To say that a guns only purpose is to kill people is outlandish at best. There are many other uses." (emphasis indicates the exact quoting--entire paragraph presented for accuracy of context)

This I believe is strawman number-type 3. You misrepresented your opponent's point and then refuted that misrepresentation, while giving the appearance of having refuted the original. Your opponent's point was that guns are used for recreation and included the example of target practice. In response, you came up with an analogy that involved enjoying running people over with a car, calling it recreation, and getting away with it. Though your exact interpretation of Ljbouchard's point is unclear, because you never restated his point, the fact that you used this analogy shows that you interpreted it along the lines of enjoying shooting people, calling it recreation, and getting away with it. Unfortunately, this interpretation is a misrepresentation. Ljbouchard mentioned target practice, not shooting people. Target practice with a gun involves, say, going to a shooting range and practicing one's aim with a gun on various targets presented there. Therefore, I believe your argument was a strawman.

If anyone else is willing, then they may go through TAFKASH's other posts and find strawmen themselves. There are other strawmen in TAFKASH's posts throughout this thread. Unfortunately, the process of posting and proving strawmen is time consuming, so if others want to do that, then be my guest. I may post and prove other strawmen of TAFKASH's later.

Oh for the love of.........

I am posting on this forum to debunk an indefensible, fallacious and highly dangerous argument that I believe any sane person should vehemently disagree with. I rely purely on my enormous reserves of wit, perspicacity and intelligence as tools in order to achieve this aim. I do not rely on cut and paste quotes from history websites to do my work for me, or tired, worn out old cliche, or indulgences in meaningless High School Debating Society Rule discussions to disguise my lack of insight, or making frankly ludicrous points about the need to defend myself against wasps and killer barrels or whatever......

I haven't got time to swap pointless semantics with you unfortunately old chap, or to read reams of junk off other websites about what some herbert thinks qualifies as a "reasonable" debating style. Arguments have been raised against my viewpoint on this discussion - I have destroyed them all by various different means as I have seen fit to do so, either humorous or serious or surreal or whatever, all to either drive home my point or to entertain myself or to do both. QED. I will continue to do so until I get bored with this discussion, and sufficiently inured to my unbroken stream of crushing victories therein to want to move on.

Amen.

Alas, you still don't get it. First, I must go to the obvious.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic website that has many different entries. Each one goes under the eye of many different people who each have the power to edit it. A list of past edits can be found in the History tab of each entry. TAFKASH tries to dismiss the list of strawman types as written by "some herbert," using another type of fallacy in the process. Again and again, TAKFASH tries to dismiss inconvenient facts by mocking them. I don't think any of us should fall for it.

TAFKASH says that arguments have been raised against his viewpoint and that he has "destroyed them all by various different means as I have seen fit to do so, either humorous or serious or surreal or whatever, all to either drive home my point or to entertain myself or to do both." TAFKASH has demonstrated that he does not know that there are limits to the means by which one can destroy arguments. For one thing, a fallacious argument is not a good refutation. I cannot refute my opponent's words by saying the word "fish," for example. Likewise, TAFKASH cannot refute his opponent's words by erecting strawmen and knocking them down. TAFKASH may think that using strawmen is okay, but I think that an analysis of how strawmen are used shows that it is not.

Let us look at one of the kinds of strawmen that I called TAFKASH on, strawman number-type 3, as defined by the Wikipedia article:

"Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted."

Now, I do not see how presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refurting it, and pretending that the opponent's actual position has been refuted is a valid way of argument. Perhaps TAFKASH does. Nevertheless, it is self-evident that you do not refute your opponent's position when you refute a misrepresentation of it. Therefore, pretending that you have refuted your opponent's position when you do so is dishonest. Refer to the second strawman I pointed out and proved in my previous post, and you shall see the proof that she written there. Look for similar patterns in TAFKASH's posts in this thread and you will see that TAFKASH makes heavy use of the strawman.

The purpose of this is not to spite TAFKASH or anyone else for that matter. I have seen TAFKASH come up with several strawmen and then claim that his opponents' arguments are easy to refute. I felt alarmed when no-one else called TAFKASH on this. That is why I decided to demonstrate thoroughly and methodically that TAFKASH has been routinely using strawmen in his posts.

While i am slightly amused by this ongoing verbal feud, and i do believe that Cornince is winning by a landslide, i am afraid the argument must stop now. TAFKASH, while your knowedge of sarcasm and exxagerated humor knows no bounds, i must ask you to restrain yourself. Cornince, i know you are trying to put him in his place in a subtle, appropriate manner, but i am afraid you are simply adding fuel to TAFKASH's fire, which has already reached incinerator point. I must ask all of you to cool it now, before i go absolutely crazy and start shooting everyone around me with a recurve bow, like a bloody Wood-Elf. Thank you.

Archmage

i am sane - it's official, actually (gods help us). and i still agree with TAFKASH. all this strawman rhetoric seems a points-scoring exercise to me. there is always the option of agreeing to disagree, of course. i'm quite happy with that, personally. but then, i live in the UK...

I am not referring to the gun control position. I am referring to TAFKASH continuously putting up strawmen for his opponent's points. That's not OK. I want to debate with a gun control person who doesn't do that kind of stuff, but TAFKASH has been the only one here for the past 3 pages.

Okay. If TAFKASH does not get it at this point, then it would be futile to try to keep convincing him. I don't have a problem with humor; you just can't take your opponent's points out of context. Neither do I desire a flame war with him. I stop now.

Get what? Your thoroughly off-kilter observations about the way I conduct my argument on this thread? I have never at any point taken anybody's comments out of context - to state otherwise is base nonsense. I have used a number of devices to exaggerate the lunacy of arguments presented in a humorous way, that is all (I mean..... shooting wasps nests..... I've been killing myself over that one all day..... ), and I haven't answered every point that has been raised, just the particular ones to tickle my fancy (I have to work for Chrissakes, and have other things to do of an evening from time to time believe it or not, and want to keep in touch with other posts on this forum - I simply don't have time to address everything directed at me). Why do I need to take comments out of context as a basis to create humour or arguments against them when such comments are so basely ludicrous to begin with that "anti" arguments and humour flow forth of their own free will? (Sorry...... I keep having visions of the next episode of "Cops" showing loads of wasps in their underwear being arrested in their hive and then dragged off to prison in little handcuffs with their faces blurred out for television....... Oh, dear me...... )

I'm sorry that I haven't had the time (or frankly inclination) to pick off your points one-by-one, and I'm not dismissing them (although I admit I haven't bothered to read any of it, if I'm being honest ).... But trust me, you'd be blown so far from the water if I did that it wouldn't be funny..... I greatly respect you as a person and all that, and a lot of the stuff you post elsewhere on these boards (and even some of the stuff on this thread) is highly insightful and commendable (and you like anime so can't be all bad ), but I'm afraid you just ain't in my league at this kind of thing love au fin du jour..... Don't feel bad about it - very few people are, and you're nearer than most.

Anyway - as far as I'm concerned that is the end of our friendly little spat Its nothing personal, and we can agree to disagree indeed (even though you are wrong )

P.S. Sorry if the presentation of the above is a little off my usual impeccable standard, but I'm in the first throes of a migraine right now, so can't really see what I'm typing..... apologies.....

P.P.S. And yes, I am an arrogant **** - I'm well aware of the fact

...Yet you have failed to present any substantive arguments in favor of your position.

You've simply employed insults, strawmen and misdirection (and, just possibly, Creationist-style wilful ignorance), to the point where your posts could be considered almost content-free. Is this meant to be intellectually respectable?

You claim to not have time to do respond in detail, but I observe that a) others have had the consideration to take time to carefully present their case to you, and b) you do seem to have enough time on your hands to type in the voluminous low-content material I've mentioned.

I provided you with a set of references, which if you've looked at at all, you've failed to acknowledge. There you will find pointers to government stats, and and mainstream news and analysis, supporting the pro-gunners (you will also find that guncite contains pointers to anti-gun material as well, so you can judge for yourself.)

Perhaps a useful exercise would be for you to consult some of these references, and take some time to think about them. Then, the next time you join a discussion on the topic, you can discuss what you think they mean, rather than disregarding them completely.

Q. E. D.

You know, in rural areas where there isn't an exterminator around every corner, using a gun to shoot down a wasp nest is a viable method of getting rid of it if it is posing a threat to humans or livestock, especially if you don't want any poisons around due to there being humans or livestock in the area. I understand that this may seem odd in a place like the UK where real rural areas like we have in the US are rare if not nonexistent.

The "shooting holes in a barrel" was supposed to be the humorous one.

Q. E. D.[/quote]

To clarify - it was cornince's bumf on strawmanism that I didn't bother to read or respond to and was uninterested in, not the gun debate stuff..... I've read all that with a great deal of amusement..... Its been much appreciated y'all



OK, fair enough - I won't make any more capital out of that one then, I promise..... There are indeed instances where farmers need firearms..... I reckon a broom'd do the job just as well, and I can't see why you need 80 million guns to do it with, but hey......



What a relief..... You had me worried there for a minute.... Sorry, I don't normally associate gun fanciers with humour so overlooked it.

The topic of gun control is rarely conducive to an enlightened discussion, and this thread clearly demostrates it. I would be grateful if I wouldn't have to read any more posts on this subject. Thank you.

Have you ever tried to take down a wasp nest? A broom is not enough distance.

My brother used to work for a record/CD/video store. He was assigned as one of the drivers who drives inventory to the various stores. The trucks were frequently hijacked in remote areas. Run off the road, and the driver assaulted with baseball bats, and occasionally knives (strange that the criminals didn't use guns since they are "so available"), and the cargo stolen. The company (pandering to gun control advocates) opposed arming the drivers. The drivers decided to arm themselves anyway. It only took a couple of instances of the driver showing the would be hijackers that they were armed (followed by said would be hijackers fleeing as fast as possible), for the hijackings to stop. No more drivers assaulted, no shots fired, nobody got hurt or is getting hurt anymore. Lots of drivers got hurt in an environment of "no guns".

It certainly demonstrates that this topic, as always, quickly illustrates the difference between those with experience, facts and well-considered arguments to contribute, and those who have nothing to offer but insults and hot air.

Creation vs Evolution, and "Capitalism" vs Communism, are two other debate topics with this peculiar characteristic.

It's certainly instructive to those who wish to hone their debating skills. However, I wouldn't wish repeated readings on anyone...

I suspect the reason this kind of thing happens is that in this kind of debate you inately have one side arguing for common sense, rationality and morality and the other side arguing for insanity, debauchery and anarchy..... Its not terribly surprising then when such things down-spiral......