Is the damage to society from guns worth the freedom to have guns?

[JackBurtonJr]

Bob... I am not sure where you get the idea that "Alcohol isn't a tool or a weapon, and it can't be used against others without using violence first." Perhaps you can clarify that for me. I know plenty of damage done by drunk people, both physically and emotionally, that has nothing to do with violence.

And to note. I am not comparing alcohol and firearms. I am comparing the freedom we have which allows people to misuse both of them -- along with, by extension, many other things.

And that's okay if it's not the style that you would use. Different strokes, eh.

BTW, the purpose of my posting the article was to get feedback from those who read it and could discuss what they saw right and wrong in it. I'll probably be re-writing the thing for the next several years from the feedback that others give me.

So feedback all you want. If you don't udnerstand something, comment.

 

[Sam1911]

But the key is the starting point. If I don't start there... the Fred and I may just be on two separate journeys and wind up speaking past one another.

But you MUST be very careful with your phrasing. When you leave out those key words "YOU BELIEVE..." you implode, eviscerate, and turn cancerous your own efforts at education. And that's what you've (I'm guessing inadvertently) done with your article.

By phrasing your opening question as you did you are beginning by agreeing that that question frames a true either-or choice. In essence you're saying, "Fred, you and I both know that we have two choices here..." That's a mistake. You could say "Fred, YOU believe you see two clear choices here, but you are mistaken..."

If you're going to use the opponent's language, you have to do so wisely and make sure you haven't lost before you begin by swallowing his lie.

 

[JackBurtonJr]

That is simply wrong, and one line the antis like to use to sell gun control. It is always about taking more freedom.

It's the old government line, "you'll be safer if we take care of you" baloney.

Yes, it is wrong, and how do you go about answering it in an effective way that changes minds and hearts?

 

[JackBurtonJr]

But you MUST be very careful with your phrasing. When you leave out those key words "YOU BELIEVE..." you implode, eviscerate, and turn cancerous your own efforts at education. And that's what you've (I'm guessing inadvertently) done with your article.

By phrasing your opening question as you did you are beginning by agreeing that that question frames a true either-or choice. In essence you're saying, "Fred, you and I both know that we have two choices here..." That's a mistake. You could say "Fred, YOU believe you see two clear choices here, but you are mistaken..."

If you're going to use the opponent's language, you have to do so wisely and make sure you haven't lost before you begin by swallowing his lie.

I think I walked that line... but we'll see over the years as the anti-gun folk respond.

 

[Sam1911]

Shouldn't be NEAR that line. That line is the poison that will kill the debate. If you (appear) to accept their framing of the question, that leaves them always open to deciding that they'll take the trade-off ("Hey, man, violence is bad. I'll do whatever it takes to end violence"). By reframing the argument to show the truth, right from the start, you take away the very basis of that choice.

 

[JackBurtonJr]

Shouldn't be NEAR that line. That line is the poison that will kill the debate. If you (appear) to accept their framing of the question, that leaves them always open to deciding that they'll take the trade-off ("Hey, man, violence is bad. I'll do whatever it takes to end violence"). By reframing the argument to show the truth, right from the start, you take away the very basis of that choice.

I am always up for a rewrite. I forget who said it but someone once remarked that good writing was 5 percent inspiration and 95 percent rewrites.

But how about giving it a look yourself as I am still not quite sure what you are aiming for. Specifically where do you think it should go.

 

[Bobson]

Sam is giving you excellent advice. I'm going to remove myself from this so you can focus on what he's telling you, but one last thing before I do.

I am still not quite sure what you are aiming for. Specifically where do you think it should go.

The most important thing for you is ensuring you never aid in connecting firearms with violence.

Are we as a country willing to accept hundreds of thousands of horrific situations and incidents when those who mis-use an otherwise legal substance create chaos and harm innocents? Or do we demand that freedom for all be curtailed so that the innocents be saved?

This bold section of the quote is much more than a question. It's a statement that firearms are the reason violence is taking place; and if we get rid of firearms, we'll get rid of violence.
This question makes your entire essay almost completely worthless. In asking this rhetorical question, you've accepted that the opponent's opinion is correct. Do NOT make that compromise.

I believe that's what Sam is getting at, but if I'm wrong, I strongly urge you to give this consideration anyway.

 

[Sam1911]

I did read it.

My comments were most directly applied to the opening paragraph:

Are we as a country willing to accept hundreds of thousands of horrific situations and incidents when those who mis-use an otherwise legal substance create chaos and harm innocents? Or do we demand that freedom for all be curtailed so that the innocents be saved?

It is framing the question as an either-or choice where the faults of choice 1 are possibly remedied by choice 2, however unpalatable choice 2 may be. You're the one driving the essay, you set the "givens". You may be assuming that others will see that you're just using the talking points of the enemy as a jumping off point, but the essay goes on to basically accept that all as true, throughout, without any real refutation. And then tries to convince the everyman (soccer-mom, ballet-dad, suburbanite, urban liberal, whatever other stereotypical timid sort you want to imagine) that that's just fine. Freedom's messy and but they should embrace it anyway.

While I completely agree with that point, it is NOT going to resonate with an awful lot of people who just want "peace" no matter at what cost and who don't care even a little for the freedoms you're asking them to give up their illusion of state-granted security to preserve.

So when you say...

I'd rather have that freedom than live in an obsessive nanny state that desires to control the actions and essential freedom of others.

Freedom is freedom. It is not to be balanced against the evils that people do either purposefully or willfully. There is no tipping point, no level of unacceptable behavior by those who choose to live outside society's rules that counterbalance the concept of freedom....

They can, and will, and DO simply reply, "NO! Look at that crazy guy in Colorado! I'd rather every gun was turned in and melted down than one person ever has to face that kind of terror! I don't WANT your freedom!"

But we know that choice is illusory. Whether they give up their (and OUR) freedom or not won't change a thing about their security or get dangerous people to stop hurting good folks. THAT's the message.

There's nothing wrong with a philosophical argument that freedom is vital at ANY cost. It's true and it's important, but it is utterly academic for 99% of the population, if ANY sacrifice hangs in the balance. You've got to show that the freedom they're offering to trade CAN'T buy them what they want, and that instead, giving up their freedom destroys the only path they have to security.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

There's nothing wrong with a philosophical argument that freedom is vital at ANY cost. It's true and it's important, but it is utterly academic for 99% of the population, if ANY sacrifice hangs in the balance. You've got to show that the freedom they're offering to trade CAN'T buy them what they want, and that instead, giving up their freedom destroys the only path they have to security.

And it's true the other way around. Bearing security is the only way to keep your freedom.

Woody

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. B.E.Wood

 

[JohnBT]

"good writing was 5 percent inspiration and 95 percent rewrites."

But you publish after doing the rewrites, not before. Once you publish and people see it you are stuck with it.

John

 

[JackBurtonJr]

"good writing was 5 percent inspiration and 95 percent rewrites."

But you publish after doing the rewrites, not before. Once you publish and people see it you are stuck with it.

John

Perhaps in the age of dead tree books. Today with the 'net everything is subject to editing. Circumstances change, ideas modify, and better skills are learned.

Put it on paper and you're stuck with it. Put it on pixel... change it as you will.

 

[JackBurtonJr]

This bold section of the quote is much more than a question. It's a statement that firearms are the reason violence is taking place; and if we get rid of firearms, we'll get rid of violence.
This question makes your entire essay almost completely worthless. In asking this rhetorical question, you've accepted that the opponent's opinion is correct. Do NOT make that compromise.

I believe that's what Sam is getting at, but if I'm wrong, I strongly urge you to give this consideration anyway.

Do the sentence again but this time highlight the word "mis-use" which is right there, bold as day, in the middle of the sentence. People MIS-USE firearms. I have no idea how you get from there to firearms are the reason violence is taking place; and if we get rid of firearms, we'll get rid of violence.

Besides... pulling a sentence out and making it the focus is not a good way to analyze a piece. I certainly set up the concept that if we get rid of alcohol, we'll still have plenty of bad things happening, including violence.

I am not sure how you get one unwritten one out of the essay while ignoring the other, written down one for all to see and read.

 

[JackBurtonJr]

I did read it.

My comments were most directly applied to the opening paragraph:

It is framing the question as an either-or choice where the faults of choice 1 are possibly remedied by choice 2, however unpalatable choice 2 may be. You're the one driving the essay, you set the "givens". You may be assuming that others will see that you're just using the talking points of the enemy as a jumping off point, but the essay goes on to basically accept that all as true, throughout, without any real refutation. And then tries to convince the everyman (soccer-mom, ballet-dad, suburbanite, urban liberal, whatever other stereotypical timid sort you want to imagine) that that's just fine. Freedom's messy and but they should embrace it anyway.

While I completely agree with that point, it is NOT going to resonate with an awful lot of people who just want "peace" no matter at what cost and who don't care even a little for the freedoms you're asking them to give up their illusion of state-granted security to preserve.

So when you say...


They can, and will, and DO simply reply, "NO! Look at that crazy guy in Colorado! I'd rather every gun was turned in and melted down than one person ever has to face that kind of terror! I don't WANT your freedom!"

But we know that choice is illusory. Whether they give up their (and OUR) freedom or not won't change a thing about their security or get dangerous people to stop hurting good folks. THAT's the message.

There's nothing wrong with a philosophical argument that freedom is vital at ANY cost. It's true and it's important, but it is utterly academic for 99% of the population, if ANY sacrifice hangs in the balance. You've got to show that the freedom they're offering to trade CAN'T buy them what they want, and that instead, giving up their freedom destroys the only path they have to security.

Sam, you make some good (and less good) points, with some of them being outside the scope of this particular essay. Particularly your last paragraph. All true, it is, but it's not my priority this time around.

Perhaps I'll give it a whack on my next one. I will certainly put a note up asking people to read it the next time before commenting on it.

Particularly over on Gunrigh***dia, where one out of ten commenters read it, but all had an opinion.

When you say "but the essay goes on to basically accept that all as true, throughout, without any real refutation." I am not sure what the antecedent of "that" is in the sentence. Could you clarify what you think the essay accepts as true.

And yes, I am aware that the essay is pretty nuanced and only a certain, probably small, percent of the anti-freedom folk will understand fully what it is saying. But those... those are the people that I want to make think about this. If I can get some people to just pause a bit and examine their hypocrisy concerning the freedoms that they like in particular then the essay is fine with me. It all adds up if we all do our part. The Bible talks about some sowing, some watering and others reaping. This is designed to be the seed that is planted for perhaps some other person to reap.

I have more hit-'em-over-the-head ones posted, but this one came out much softer for some reason.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Nuance?

Jack, you want to be careful with that whole "nuance" thing.

The "mostly literate" will stumble on it and find it frustrating.

The "semi literate" will simply misunderstand it.

The "just plain literate" will wonder why it needs to be so contorted.

The "overly literate" will find a way to use the nuance to their own purpose.


Plain language and clear articulation avoid a lot of that.

Just sayin'.

 

[Bobson]

Once you publish and people see it you are stuck with it.

Perhaps in the age of dead tree books. . . . .

Put it on paper and you're stuck with it. Put it on pixel... change it as you will.

It doesn't seem to occur to you that once you allow people to read an incomplete essay, you're doing damage you can't undo, even with all the editing in the world. Yes, you can change the words. You can't change the impression anyone gets from reading it the first time - or the only time, as the case will be with many people.

I have no idea how you get from there to firearms are the reason violence is taking place; and if we get rid of firearms, we'll get rid of violence.

Besides... pulling a sentence out and making it the focus is not a good way to analyze a piece.

I wasn't analyzing your essay, I was utilizing the skill of reading comprehension to help you understand what you're saying in that particular section, whether you meant to say it or not. I'll explain this in the next section, in case it's still unclear.

I am not sure how you get one unwritten one out of the essay while ignoring the other

Your entire essay is built around addressing a problem in our society (violence), by answering the question you posed at the beginning of it, as well as here on THR in your first post. Your question provides two options (or solutions, if you will), which are as follows:

1. Change nothing; accept that things are the way they are. or
2. Remove guns from the equation.

Anyone who looks at those two options should draw the logical conclusion that the writer believes option two will solve the problem. If he does not believe that, there would be no reason to offer it as an option in the first place.

 

[gtd]

"I am confident in my statement that over a ten year period guns were used in several hundred thousand incidents since there were several hundred thousand incidents in just one year. "

But how do you discern whether eliminating one type of weapon (i.e., guns) might change the number of "incidents?" How do you know whether eliminating guns wouldn't just maintain the same number of "incidents" involving knives or pitchforks instead of guns?

 

[Millwright]

JBJ, As promised I read your piece. Good !

LBJ's "Great Society" started us down the road to government dependency. Or as the perhaps, apocgraphal tale has it, we pass this and those N*****s will vote Democrat for fifty years ! . The OA has taken this philosophy to new heights with Pigford, the DREAM Act, workfare elimination and wholesale raiding of the public purse for generations hence to support his dependent constituency at the expense of the elderly and disabled. >MW

 

[Robert]

After 9 pages much of the useful argument has taken place and now we're degenerating into squabbling, entrenched repetition and insulting behavior. Having reached the more smoke than light and rapidly approaching the flames we're better off closing this thread.