Hoyt, this is for you :)

[Hoyt]

Mr. or Ms Hoyt...

 

You may have "reasons' date='" but your arguments certainly don't meet the standard of use of logic.

 

Telling the truth of things that happen in a newspaper is not tantamount to writing the "Turner Diaries." Nor is singing sexually suggestive songs in a "growup" venue the same as singing songs recommending one "snuff the ho."

 

Nor is owning a firearm one finds "fun" for innocent recreation, regardless of its appearance, tantamount to physically harming others.

 

Nor is knowing how to physically harm others, or to encourage others to harm others, the same as putting that knowledge into practice.

 

I can assure you that more people have been harmed by North American criminals - in the Anglophone areas of North American, anyway, by standard single or double action revolvers that you consider "fine" than by rifles that you have decided to call "assault weapons" regardless of the true definition. Again, by definition, true "assault rifles" have been illegal in the US since the 1920s except for very rare federal licensees.

 

That habit of changing word meanings, as in Alice's Wonderland (actually Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass") is rather counterproductive to productive discourse.

 

Remember?

 

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - nothing more nor less."

 

"The Question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

 

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

 

[/quote']

 

 

What one might call the "prurient interest" in assualt weapons is a problem in our society. You might not see the "logic" in that, but that doesn't change my opinion.

 

While I agree Alice and Wonderland includes philosophical insight, I'm not sure one who quotes Alice -- or Humpty Dumpty -- to argue a point would qualify as an expert in Aristotelian logic.

[KSG_Standard]

Hoyt,

 

I think that you might be suffering from a case of Hoplophobia...

[milod]

I make no claim to be an "expert" at Aristotle, but I've read a bit, including both Logic and Rhetoric, albeit long ago in high school. (School was a bit different in those days, apparently.)

 

You're the one making your own definitions in order to bolster an argument that certainly doesn't follow any pattern of either inductive or deductive reasoning I've trained in. You're obviously not the only one who does so. But I object to any such.

 

My quotes from Carroll were not per se part of an argument, but an illustration of those who change the meaning of words for political purposes - which was, after all, exactly what was meant in Carroll's work. If one objects to being cast as "a" Humpty Dumpty, it's that individual who perceived himself in such a comparison. I simply illustrated a mode of rhetoric that may be full of sound and fury, but.... Yeah, perhaps you recognize the Shakespearian allusion?

 

Quoting Carroll isn't Aristotelian logic, but it is a marvelous illustration of those whose perspectives are so colored that they must "win" an argument by changing meanings of terms to prove they "must" be right. And if one points out that such is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad hominem is the next recourse ... yet another logical fallacy.

 

It's not a matter of hoplophobia - which in ways, of course, it is - but rather whether it is proper in this venue or any other to make definitions mean whatever one wishes in order to hope that misinformation will sway opinion.

 

Is an SG a semi-hollowbody? Well, why not, it does have holes drilled in it so it's not solid. Right?

 

"Assault?" That's a highly charged word in a civilian context. But using it to color an argument by redefining what is an "assault rifle" is itself a fallacy in logic, regardless whether it may sway listeners or readers. But if, as Carroll wrote, it's not a matter of definition but of asserting mastery over others... one wins simply by willingness to play that game longer than the voice of logic.

 

If you don't like certain shapes of .223 cal. semiautomatic rifles mechanically identical to others that don't particularly bother you, fine. Please admit it's purely a subjective response to physical appearance. Then say you hate firearms that resemble military models. I don't agree, but what the heck, I don't like Telecasters either. Don't play word games and then revert to agrumentum ad hominem.

 

End of discussion. Period. It seems you "win."

[FennRx]

Hoyt' date='

 

I think that you might be suffering from a case of Hoplophobia...[/quote']

 

word.

 

or just a low iq. he should have himself another glass of sarah brady's kool-aid.

[daerious]

 

You're the one making your own definitions in order to bolster an argument that certainly doesn't follow any pattern of either inductive or deductive reasoning I've trained in. You're obviously not the only one who does so. But I object to any such.

 

...

 

If you don't like certain shapes of .223 cal. semiautomatic rifles mechanically identical to others that don't particularly bother you' date=' fine. Please admit it's purely a subjective response to physical appearance. Then say you hate firearms that resemble military models.

 

[/quote']

 

+1

 

I would really like to hear a well thought out argument that supports these upcoming bans. I have not been able to find any that were not full of contradictions, use of "magic basket" words, and illogical reasoning.

 

Magic Basket words are words like "assault rifle". "Assault rifle" as a word, has a two fold purpose. One is to inspire fear in order to exert control, the other is to have a magic classification of weapons that ANY weapon can be placed in when necessary to serve their purpose. For example, lets ban assault rifles, what is an assault rifle, anything "we" decide is an assault rifle. Magic Baskets are used to contain an illogical grouping of items and conceal the lack of logic behind their grouping.

 

If anyone knows of any well thought out, and well stated articles or perhaps videos of lectures available online, that clearly and with some logical reasoning explain why one should believe banning weapons is desirable or even acceptable, please do post some links for me.

 

Examples of arguments that I do not consider logical, and therefore do not need are:

 

1. No one needs anything more than x.

2. Unsubstantiated general claims such as "Ban guns to reduce crime", "Ban guns to reduce accidents", etc.

3. Arguments full of opinions concerning the appearance or performance irrelevant modification of firearms (pistol grip, barrel shroud, etc.

4. Any use of references to magazine capacity as a major factor in their argument unless substantiated

5. Unverifiable statistics. If the argument is full of "73% of" statements, it will need to include independent research by non government sources that are generally reliable (University research, etc)

 

I am trying to be open minded concerning the arguments made that support gun bans. However, after requesting this information on forums, in classrooms, and from local government and law enforcement, I have been unable to obtain any such reasonable arguments.

 

Hoyt, your feelings being as strong as they are, I would think you to be likely to have knowledge of some resources I could use.

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me out.

[FennRx]

daerious,

 

you won get one. i have asked him over and over again for the same thing. his response is always that the questions are stupid, or ignores them all together or calls me a terrorist/pyschopath/mental degenerate.

 

at first i was interested in a real debate, now i just think he's hilarious.