Captain33036
Member
The sad events in Tucson could not go without good use by the mainstream press. Below is a link to the above mentioned Op-Ed, The Myth of the Hero Gunslinger:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/myth-of-the-hero-gunslinger/?emc=eta1
The obvious tenet of the author is that value, to society, of gun ownship and carrying of concealed weapons is a myth that should be refuted in order for society to wake up and understand that guns should be very strictly controlled, if allowed at all.
But, let's read exactly what the author has written to understand their argument to the masses [with a couple of annotations to point out how the argument is constructed]:
“In fact, several people were armed. So, what actually happened? As Zamudio said in numerous interviews, he never got a shot off at the gunman, but he nearly harmed the wrong person — one of those trying to control Loughner.”
“To his credit, he ultimately helped subdue Loughner. But suppose, in those few seconds of confusion, he had fired at the wrong man and killed a hero? “I was very lucky,” Zamudio said.
[Tactic bolded and underlined: here he draws the reader away from the facts, creates a NEW set of facts by speculation and then ends with an emotional argument. Got to love it!]
"It defies logic, as this case shows once again, that an average citizen with a gun is going to disarm a crazed killer. For one thing, these kinds of shootings happen far too suddenly for even the quickest marksman to get a draw. For another, your typical gun hobbyist lacks training in how to react in a violent scrum.”
[Tactic underlined and bolded: Statement that anything other than THE authors conclusion is not logical. Stating UP FRONT that if you do not agree with him…YOU are an idiot. ]
[The second point regarding training....one must admire how this author inserts OPINION as if it were FACT.]
So, the logic of the writers argument is that a legally armed civilian can do NOTHING ...and if he were to do something ....that it would be something TERRIBLY wrong and result in the deaths of innocent people. Thus, no one but the state should have guns.
WOW. Nicely done.
You, no doubt can see the obvious flaw. In fact, the facts support the opposite conclusion. A legally armed civilian WAS prepared to act and DID in fact make the CORRECT decision to NOT fire. There was no clear field of fire and no clear perpetrator....hmmm..... Training? Luck? Smart? Educated? Perhaps actually did some reading of what a responsibly armed individual SHOULD and SHOULD NOT do?? Gee whiz.
Further, this agenda driven author uses this one single scenario to support his general argument (later on in the piece...I did not want to abuse you with more) that civilian ownership of guns simpy cannot be used for protection. That this is a myth. This conflates two disparate issues ….a well known tactic and handholds the reader, taking the unsuspecting down a completely erroneous path. The government supported facts are that guns are used to protect individuals every single day and that a scenario such as this one is extremely rare to the point where nothing could have been done. Not even the police could have done anything in this situation.
So, an intellectually dishonest tactic used to draw an agenda driven conclusion that was not supported by the facts.
We really must sit back and admire the persistence. They do keep trying.
My best to all
John
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/myth-of-the-hero-gunslinger/?emc=eta1
The obvious tenet of the author is that value, to society, of gun ownship and carrying of concealed weapons is a myth that should be refuted in order for society to wake up and understand that guns should be very strictly controlled, if allowed at all.
But, let's read exactly what the author has written to understand their argument to the masses [with a couple of annotations to point out how the argument is constructed]:
“In fact, several people were armed. So, what actually happened? As Zamudio said in numerous interviews, he never got a shot off at the gunman, but he nearly harmed the wrong person — one of those trying to control Loughner.”
“To his credit, he ultimately helped subdue Loughner. But suppose, in those few seconds of confusion, he had fired at the wrong man and killed a hero? “I was very lucky,” Zamudio said.
[Tactic bolded and underlined: here he draws the reader away from the facts, creates a NEW set of facts by speculation and then ends with an emotional argument. Got to love it!]
"It defies logic, as this case shows once again, that an average citizen with a gun is going to disarm a crazed killer. For one thing, these kinds of shootings happen far too suddenly for even the quickest marksman to get a draw. For another, your typical gun hobbyist lacks training in how to react in a violent scrum.”
[Tactic underlined and bolded: Statement that anything other than THE authors conclusion is not logical. Stating UP FRONT that if you do not agree with him…YOU are an idiot. ]
[The second point regarding training....one must admire how this author inserts OPINION as if it were FACT.]
So, the logic of the writers argument is that a legally armed civilian can do NOTHING ...and if he were to do something ....that it would be something TERRIBLY wrong and result in the deaths of innocent people. Thus, no one but the state should have guns.
WOW. Nicely done.
You, no doubt can see the obvious flaw. In fact, the facts support the opposite conclusion. A legally armed civilian WAS prepared to act and DID in fact make the CORRECT decision to NOT fire. There was no clear field of fire and no clear perpetrator....hmmm..... Training? Luck? Smart? Educated? Perhaps actually did some reading of what a responsibly armed individual SHOULD and SHOULD NOT do?? Gee whiz.
Further, this agenda driven author uses this one single scenario to support his general argument (later on in the piece...I did not want to abuse you with more) that civilian ownership of guns simpy cannot be used for protection. That this is a myth. This conflates two disparate issues ….a well known tactic and handholds the reader, taking the unsuspecting down a completely erroneous path. The government supported facts are that guns are used to protect individuals every single day and that a scenario such as this one is extremely rare to the point where nothing could have been done. Not even the police could have done anything in this situation.
So, an intellectually dishonest tactic used to draw an agenda driven conclusion that was not supported by the facts.
We really must sit back and admire the persistence. They do keep trying.
My best to all
John
