Decisions and positions
This post is a continuation of a discussion on panoramae.blogspot.com.... 
I understand how one arrives at the position of #2 regarding the analogy of handguns:killing people as an intended use– let’s use an example.
Bono runs/does an anti-gun rant/video as part of "Bullet the Blue Sky."
Now I think that he and this message is a perfect reflection of the position of the anti-gun discussion. To understand his position we need to ask ourselves - Where did he grow up/live? A big city. - Under what conditions? IRA havoc...
Where did I grow up/live? Rural Kansas and now Idaho - Under what conditions? Definitely not dealing with terrorism first hand.
So what?
The fact is a gun has a different intended use and stigma dependent upon one's surroundings and conditions. To not agree would be blind to the reality of a given situation.
I understand that we probably agree on many aspects of gun control and probably many other subjects as well.
What concerns me is WHO is making these decisions and easily accepted arguments on issues like gun control.
An example specific to my area has been the situation of wolves as an endangered/protected species. Anyone who knows the dynamic of a wolf - its tendencies, and how overwhelmingly prevalent they are in the backcountry here - knows they are not and should not be an endangered/protected species - in this area. I'm not saying go kill them all - that would be pretty ignorant rather they should not be on the endangered/protected list - they aren’t anymore thanks to the management of them being handed over to state gov. as opposed to the previous federal management. Guess who has a hunting season on them this year? Yep you guessed - an animal that has been federally managed and has become a nuisance. One may say, “well they were here first” – the flaw of that statement is that it does not acknowledge the reality of the current situation which believe it or not we really have to work with.
But let’s look at who was making all of these decisions at the federal level of wolf management - people from Massachusetts, New York, LA, etc. How many of these people have first hand experience with Idaho? – How about the rural and backcountry areas?
The people making the calls or having these voices suggesting what our stance should be on issues and most often special interest issues are so disconnected from the specifics that generalizations are the mantras and sadly so easily accepted out of society’s lack of knowledge, a purely emotional response, and/or laziness.
Please understand that I am discussing an issue bigger than gun management, wolf management, etc – and is why I am discussing the smaller issues to get at a central issue – the acceptance of information, creation of a position, and its defense without using all the real information and personal research and study on the validity of the position.
I understand how one arrives at the position of #2 regarding the analogy of handguns:killing people as an intended use– let’s use an example.
Bono runs/does an anti-gun rant/video as part of "Bullet the Blue Sky."
Now I think that he and this message is a perfect reflection of the position of the anti-gun discussion. To understand his position we need to ask ourselves - Where did he grow up/live? A big city. - Under what conditions? IRA havoc...
Where did I grow up/live? Rural Kansas and now Idaho - Under what conditions? Definitely not dealing with terrorism first hand.
So what?
The fact is a gun has a different intended use and stigma dependent upon one's surroundings and conditions. To not agree would be blind to the reality of a given situation.
I understand that we probably agree on many aspects of gun control and probably many other subjects as well.
What concerns me is WHO is making these decisions and easily accepted arguments on issues like gun control.
An example specific to my area has been the situation of wolves as an endangered/protected species. Anyone who knows the dynamic of a wolf - its tendencies, and how overwhelmingly prevalent they are in the backcountry here - knows they are not and should not be an endangered/protected species - in this area. I'm not saying go kill them all - that would be pretty ignorant rather they should not be on the endangered/protected list - they aren’t anymore thanks to the management of them being handed over to state gov. as opposed to the previous federal management. Guess who has a hunting season on them this year? Yep you guessed - an animal that has been federally managed and has become a nuisance. One may say, “well they were here first” – the flaw of that statement is that it does not acknowledge the reality of the current situation which believe it or not we really have to work with.
But let’s look at who was making all of these decisions at the federal level of wolf management - people from Massachusetts, New York, LA, etc. How many of these people have first hand experience with Idaho? – How about the rural and backcountry areas?
The people making the calls or having these voices suggesting what our stance should be on issues and most often special interest issues are so disconnected from the specifics that generalizations are the mantras and sadly so easily accepted out of society’s lack of knowledge, a purely emotional response, and/or laziness.
Please understand that I am discussing an issue bigger than gun management, wolf management, etc – and is why I am discussing the smaller issues to get at a central issue – the acceptance of information, creation of a position, and its defense without using all the real information and personal research and study on the validity of the position.
posted by john at 8:41 AM
4 Comments:
an argumentum ad hominem, which looks to the arguer rather than the argument, is a logical fallacy. you see it a lot on tv, but it has nothing to do with evaluating the validity of an argument.
for example: if hitler makes a valid argument that african-americans should have voting rights, the fact that he's hitler doesn't affect the validity of his argument.
and i still didn't catch what the intended purpose of a pistol is, if not to kill/mame people.
though, for the record, i believe i am going to buy one of those that i posted about the next time i come across a couple thousand spare dollars.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/anthonyhartman/124691090/
Samuel Colt, the inventor of the revolver as I'm sure a fine NRA card totin' member such as you knows, http://www.flickr.com/photos/anthonyhartman/124691090/
whittled his idea of a revolver out of wood while I believe on a ship as a teenager. He eventually manufactured the revolver after bringing the funds together (ahhh… capitalism) and sold the majority of his invention to Texans on the frontier and involved in the Seminole War in FL. So it was created for…? But yes, produced for as the saying goes - not all men are born equal, Samuel Colt leveled the playing field...
So - good - lets work with your stance that a handgun's intended use is for killing/maiming people. Does this stand true with all guns? Why or why not?
How about a muzzle loader or other primitive arms?
Does one who owns a handgun have the intention to kill or maim people? I would say it surely is not a requirement. Does one have the ability to kill or maim people through the use of a handgun? – Absolutely, but as you mentioned earlier a pen could be substituted.
As far as the Hitler question posed– and the issue of argumentum ad hominem also referred to as "poisoning the well" – the entity of the statement maker does not affect the validity of a VALID argument. Valid being the key word. So how does one discern if an argument is valid...that’s the question isn’t it? Which bring us full circle back to the central intention of starting this discussion. A trend that seems to be broadening in the acceptance of information, creation of a position, and its defense without using all the real information and personal research and study on the validity of the position.
The ASP is a cool gun. Isn’t this fun…
Post a Comment
<< Home