DKSuddeth
Member
Has anyone ever been told that your 'cars kill people, so ban cars' argument called a strawman argument?
when debating with gun grabbers
- Thread starter DKSuddeth
- Start date
- Status
PlayboyPenguin
member
That argument is not a good one. It just doesn't hold up. Cars serve a definate need beyond sport or self defense. They are almost a neccessity in todays world. Guns are good at one thing. Shooting. Cars are used in most everything you do. It makes about as much sense as saying we should ban stairs because people fall down them all the time. Or bathtubs because people slip in them at home. It makes for a pretty weak argument. Any anti with half a brain could destroy the logic of that argument so stick to the good ones. Don't destroy your stance with weak information when better is available. Not to mention that in 2001 almost 95% of housholds owned a car but less than 25% owned a firearm. Nearly 30,000 firearm deaths where recorded but only around 42,000 auto related fatalities. At these levels of ownership, for them to be comparable in danger people would have to use firearms daily and then car deaths would have to climb to 108,000.
Foxtrot427
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2006
- Messages
- 512
I used it a while ago. But like said above, cars are used by almost everyone almost every day. People need them. In todays society someone can live an everyday life without a gun unlike a car.
We've all talked about how we're losing the war of words in the struggle for our liberties.
Well here comes the cavalry.
POLITICALLY CORRECTED
Glossary of Terms
by Alan Korwin, Author, Gun Laws of America
Part One -- The Concept
Certain words hurt you when you talk about your rights and liberties. People who would deny your rights have done a good job of manipulating the language so far.
Without even realizing it, you're probably using terms that actually help the people who want to disarm you.
To preserve, protect and defend your rights in the critical debate on where power should reside in America, you need effective word choices. Try out some of the ideas in this chart the next time you deal with this subject.
http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm
Well here comes the cavalry.
POLITICALLY CORRECTED
Glossary of Terms
by Alan Korwin, Author, Gun Laws of America
Part One -- The Concept
Certain words hurt you when you talk about your rights and liberties. People who would deny your rights have done a good job of manipulating the language so far.
Without even realizing it, you're probably using terms that actually help the people who want to disarm you.
To preserve, protect and defend your rights in the critical debate on where power should reside in America, you need effective word choices. Try out some of the ideas in this chart the next time you deal with this subject.
http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm
Thefabulousfink
Member
Here's the Wikipedia definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
It could be considered a strawman fallacy depending on how you phrased it and the context of the discussion. If their oppinion was that "guns are dangerous and should be banned." Then it is an equal argument to say "cars are dangerous and should be banned."
However, If their argument is more allong the lines of "A gun is designed to be a killing weapon and should be banned." They counter argument of "cars kill people and should be banned" would be a stawman because it simplifies their argument, omitting their claim that gun are designed to kill.
When debating Anti-gunners, simple arguments can be met with simple responses. This can be used to show someone how immature their views on guns are (hopefully). More complex arguments, however, require a more thought-out response.
Edit:I make no argument as to the strength of the "cars kill people" response. There are many stronger arguments for use against antis, however that doen't mean that we should abandon it. A rediculously simple argument like "cars kill people" can be useful at pointing out how rediculously simple the anti's statement of "guns kill people" is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
It could be considered a strawman fallacy depending on how you phrased it and the context of the discussion. If their oppinion was that "guns are dangerous and should be banned." Then it is an equal argument to say "cars are dangerous and should be banned."
However, If their argument is more allong the lines of "A gun is designed to be a killing weapon and should be banned." They counter argument of "cars kill people and should be banned" would be a stawman because it simplifies their argument, omitting their claim that gun are designed to kill.
When debating Anti-gunners, simple arguments can be met with simple responses. This can be used to show someone how immature their views on guns are (hopefully). More complex arguments, however, require a more thought-out response.
Edit:I make no argument as to the strength of the "cars kill people" response. There are many stronger arguments for use against antis, however that doen't mean that we should abandon it. A rediculously simple argument like "cars kill people" can be useful at pointing out how rediculously simple the anti's statement of "guns kill people" is.
GullyFoyle
Member
Your typical anti won't even acknowledge that guns have valid purpose. That purpose is defensive gun use. The "Ban Cars" argument IS an effective way to get an anti to agree that you should look at both the costs AND the benefits of having guns.
Once you get them to agree to that, you are beginning to get them to think logically. You need to then discuss the various studies that show the prevelance of defensive gun use, here is an excellent link that compares the different numbers available from different sources and the potential for both over and under reporting of DGU (defensive gun use) with each method used.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SmithT1.htm
Quick summary: NCVS typically reports 50-80k DGU's a year, but is not designed to actually capture this statistic, so it is probably underreported.
Survey data by researchers (university) reports yearly DGU uses at up to 2.3 million but are probably skewed high based on the data gathering method.
The reality is that the number is probably somewhere in-between.
Whenever i have presented these numbers to an anti, i usually receive stunned silence, or disbelief. I happily provide them a link and ask them to PLEASE, PLEASE research for themselves. (they never do, but the seeds of doubt are sewn for further discussions...)
Once you get them to agree to that, you are beginning to get them to think logically. You need to then discuss the various studies that show the prevelance of defensive gun use, here is an excellent link that compares the different numbers available from different sources and the potential for both over and under reporting of DGU (defensive gun use) with each method used.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SmithT1.htm
Quick summary: NCVS typically reports 50-80k DGU's a year, but is not designed to actually capture this statistic, so it is probably underreported.
Survey data by researchers (university) reports yearly DGU uses at up to 2.3 million but are probably skewed high based on the data gathering method.
The reality is that the number is probably somewhere in-between.
Whenever i have presented these numbers to an anti, i usually receive stunned silence, or disbelief. I happily provide them a link and ask them to PLEASE, PLEASE research for themselves. (they never do, but the seeds of doubt are sewn for further discussions...)
Manedwolf
member
There's a difference between a strawman and an analogy.
V4Vendetta
member
I had a conversation with a anti a few weeks back. We were talking about stuff in general & somehow guns came up. He said he was anti gun which I had a hard time believing seeing as how he was in the army & is now a security guard
. Then he said that he felt us civilians shouldn't own guns like the AR & such. I mentiond the riots in Watt's back in 1965 when the Korean storeowners sat on the roofs of their stores with "assault guns". That those were the storeowners who weren't dragged into the streets & beaten to death buy rioters. Their stores weren't looted & burned to the ground. From the way he talked after that he didn't sound too convinced of his argument but now whenever he comes in my store he calls me "Rambo" .
. Then he said that he felt us civilians shouldn't own guns like the AR & such. I mentiond the riots in Watt's back in 1965 when the Korean storeowners sat on the roofs of their stores with "assault guns". That those were the storeowners who weren't dragged into the streets & beaten to death buy rioters. Their stores weren't looted & burned to the ground. From the way he talked after that he didn't sound too convinced of his argument but now whenever he comes in my store he calls me "Rambo" .Thefabulousfink
Member
True, but the definition of a straw man is to create and example that simplifes the opponent's argument so that it apears weaker.
My first example was a valid analogy because both side were equal. My second example simplified the anti's argument to make it appear weaker.
My first example was a valid analogy because both side were equal. My second example simplified the anti's argument to make it appear weaker.
Nitrogen
Member
From a former Anti, and from a family full of them:
The only thing i'd tell you to do is present facts.
Facts that Pools kill more children than guns
facts that CHL/CCW holders aren't killing people left and right
Gun Control does nothing for safety, etc etc
And most importantly, don't expect your Anti to change his mind right there.
Give your facts,and let it alone.
If it happens, it'll happen over time.
All of the Anti's arguments are emotional. Logical arguments will not silence them. Logic has to eat through over time.
The only thing i'd tell you to do is present facts.
Facts that Pools kill more children than guns
facts that CHL/CCW holders aren't killing people left and right
Gun Control does nothing for safety, etc etc
And most importantly, don't expect your Anti to change his mind right there.
Give your facts,and let it alone.
If it happens, it'll happen over time.
All of the Anti's arguments are emotional. Logical arguments will not silence them. Logic has to eat through over time.
DKSuddeth
Member
well, I guess those law enforcement types better stop calling cars that try to run them over 'deadly weapons', eh?
Stiletto Null
Member
Yeah, the cars argument really is a rather weak one. It's nice for setting up a certain mindset, but it's a generally weak line of logic.
First, agree with and validate their feelings. I agree that it is terrible that innocent people are killed with guns. That will acknowledge the emotional part of their position and by demonstrating that you can relate to their concerns and that their concerns, (innocent people killed with guns), are valid you take a lot of steam out of them. They may even hear a little of what you may say. Then instead of just telling them that they are wrong or why they are wrong - instead ask them to explain what they think is appropriate gun control and then ask them to explain to you how it would work to solve the problem as they see it.
At that point you may begin to ask further questions - Well they tried what you suggest in blank and what happened instead was blank, how would it be different here? If they are receptive enough you can say things like, well I think that CCW laws or gun ownership really does blank and blank, but I don't expect you to take my word for it, I found that information here, why don't you check it out sometime?
Most of all though if you want to win a anti-gun person over, take them shooting. If they go, (tell them why not, if they feel so strongly pro-gun control, then why not at least go shooting with you to see what you like about it and to experience it first hand) - then they will be much more likely to be open to listening to you - especially if they kind of enjoy it. If they have a positive experience then they will unconsciously start looking for reasons to believe you and to begin to reform their opinions.
Just "arguing" with someone will rarely change their mind - it usually just leads them to harden their position.
At that point you may begin to ask further questions - Well they tried what you suggest in blank and what happened instead was blank, how would it be different here? If they are receptive enough you can say things like, well I think that CCW laws or gun ownership really does blank and blank, but I don't expect you to take my word for it, I found that information here, why don't you check it out sometime?
Most of all though if you want to win a anti-gun person over, take them shooting. If they go, (tell them why not, if they feel so strongly pro-gun control, then why not at least go shooting with you to see what you like about it and to experience it first hand) - then they will be much more likely to be open to listening to you - especially if they kind of enjoy it. If they have a positive experience then they will unconsciously start looking for reasons to believe you and to begin to reform their opinions.
Just "arguing" with someone will rarely change their mind - it usually just leads them to harden their position.
V4Vendetta
member
I didn't mention the dates, just "The Watt's riots." Sorry if I got the dates wrong. That's what happens when you learn your history from "Sanford & Son".
bumm
Member
Nitrogen was saying
>And most importantly, don't expect your Anti to
> change his mind right there.
>Give your facts,and let it alone.
>If it happens, it'll happen over time.
This is a VERY good point. To expect someone to back off and change his mind immediately is just not realistic. Most people are more likely to just dig in deeper and stand their ground if they feel their beliefs are being attacked. If you REALLY want to make a difference, make your points, stay friendly, and allow them to think things over on their own time.
As for myself, there are two main points I usually bring up.
1. When I was young, there was very little gun control, and gun crime was much less prevalent. At that time, I could have bought just about any gun through the mail. The availability of guns has very little to do with crime.
2. The "noble experiments" have been done. All you have to do is look around the country, and around the world, to see how ineffective gun control really is. It doesn't hurt to compare gun control laws with the disaster of prohibition of alcohol here in America. (The war on drugs is about the same, only now days, this opens a whole different can of worms.)
Marty
>And most importantly, don't expect your Anti to
> change his mind right there.
>Give your facts,and let it alone.
>If it happens, it'll happen over time.
This is a VERY good point. To expect someone to back off and change his mind immediately is just not realistic. Most people are more likely to just dig in deeper and stand their ground if they feel their beliefs are being attacked. If you REALLY want to make a difference, make your points, stay friendly, and allow them to think things over on their own time.
As for myself, there are two main points I usually bring up.
1. When I was young, there was very little gun control, and gun crime was much less prevalent. At that time, I could have bought just about any gun through the mail. The availability of guns has very little to do with crime.
2. The "noble experiments" have been done. All you have to do is look around the country, and around the world, to see how ineffective gun control really is. It doesn't hurt to compare gun control laws with the disaster of prohibition of alcohol here in America. (The war on drugs is about the same, only now days, this opens a whole different can of worms.)
Marty
Thefabulousfink
Member
My personal favorite argumen centers around the fact that violence in a problem of psycology, not technology.
I generally try and suggest that anti-gunners would see much better results if they focused their energies on reducing the factors that cause people to turn to crime rather than tools that are used in them. Violent crime did not spring up with the introduction of gunpowder.
The results of the 1326AD census are a little hazey, but I think you will find that deaths from swords, axes, daggers, and arrows are just as high as those from firearms these days.
I generally try and suggest that anti-gunners would see much better results if they focused their energies on reducing the factors that cause people to turn to crime rather than tools that are used in them. Violent crime did not spring up with the introduction of gunpowder.
The results of the 1326AD census are a little hazey, but I think you will find that deaths from swords, axes, daggers, and arrows are just as high as those from firearms these days.
CrazyIrishman
Member
Trying to explain anything gun related to the anti-gun types here in Maryland will drive you nuts. Here they have a sub-species of anti's unlike those found elsewhere in the U.S.
With this type it doesn't matter what you base your facts on, or how you present them! Its even worse should you try using logic!
They only see or understand one thing and that is "ALL guns are evil" unless you're a LEO or military!
With this type it doesn't matter what you base your facts on, or how you present them! Its even worse should you try using logic!
They only see or understand one thing and that is "ALL guns are evil" unless you're a LEO or military!
Guy B. Meredith
Member
We don't need cars. We just need to redesign our cities and this is already happening in some new developments in Oregon, here in the SF Bay area, etc.
Cars serve to provide transportation and the government can provide public transit, cut overall highway building costs and reduce mayhem on the streets.
CrazyIrishman,
See if your antis understand the term 'bigot'.
Cars serve to provide transportation and the government can provide public transit, cut overall highway building costs and reduce mayhem on the streets.
CrazyIrishman,
See if your antis understand the term 'bigot'.
red headed stranger
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2006
- Messages
- 36
I agree with what Nitrogen is saying here. You may have won the argument, but most people have too much pride to admit it right away. if you give them time to let your ideas settle in their mind, you may find them more receptive to your views later.
Hawk
Member
Stereotypes are dangerous, but a goodly number of anti's are "progressive" in that they tend to look to the root of a problem rather than just its symptoms. They are often of the type that would address homelessness with training, self-help education and the like. That can actually help the discussion.
If it's one-on-one rather than a formal debate, get them thinking about the complexity of a number of problems encountered daily then drop a bomb along the lines of:
"Trying to address inner city violence with gun laws is like trying to cure homelessness with vagrancy laws."
Might start the wheels turning.
They're looking for a result that anti gun laws can't provide. Most can figure that out. "True believers" excepted of course.
If it's one-on-one rather than a formal debate, get them thinking about the complexity of a number of problems encountered daily then drop a bomb along the lines of:
"Trying to address inner city violence with gun laws is like trying to cure homelessness with vagrancy laws."
Might start the wheels turning.
They're looking for a result that anti gun laws can't provide. Most can figure that out. "True believers" excepted of course.
joesixpack
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Messages
- 13
I don't post here very often, but I just have to give two thumbs up for that one. I can't wait to use that gem.
DunedinDragon
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Messages
- 374
I disagree totally that the car issue is not worthwhile.
First, I totally disagree that cars are a necessity to life. There are certainly PLENTY of people out there that don't drive and operate just fine in today's society.
But the issue here, in my mind, is not about what each thing is designed to do or the number of deaths associated with one or the other. A car in the hands of an irresponsible person is deadly, regardless of what it was designed to do. A gun in the hands of a responsible gun owner is, in all likelihood, LESS deadly than a car because of many of our self-imposed rules for shooting and handling a gun. A person that owns a car and drives responsibly is still subject to someone stealing their car and using it irresponsibly, so does it make sense to limit what they can or cannot do with their car to preclude such a situation? And that situation is FAR more prevelant in our society than is the stealing of guns, and that's not due to legislation...that's due to self-imposed, responsible gun ownership by most gun owners.
This argument has NOTHING to do with design, but rather with usage...and irresponsible usage of either, and the removal of either from the hands of those that are irresponsible is the ONLY thing you can possibly hope to effectively legislate or enforce.
First, I totally disagree that cars are a necessity to life. There are certainly PLENTY of people out there that don't drive and operate just fine in today's society.
But the issue here, in my mind, is not about what each thing is designed to do or the number of deaths associated with one or the other. A car in the hands of an irresponsible person is deadly, regardless of what it was designed to do. A gun in the hands of a responsible gun owner is, in all likelihood, LESS deadly than a car because of many of our self-imposed rules for shooting and handling a gun. A person that owns a car and drives responsibly is still subject to someone stealing their car and using it irresponsibly, so does it make sense to limit what they can or cannot do with their car to preclude such a situation? And that situation is FAR more prevelant in our society than is the stealing of guns, and that's not due to legislation...that's due to self-imposed, responsible gun ownership by most gun owners.
This argument has NOTHING to do with design, but rather with usage...and irresponsible usage of either, and the removal of either from the hands of those that are irresponsible is the ONLY thing you can possibly hope to effectively legislate or enforce.
- Status