'Common Sense' Gun Control & a professional counterargument to this reasoning pitfall

Status
Not open for further replies.

cdk8

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
422
Does anyone else find this whole "common sense gun control" argument to be frustrating and kind of dumb? The basic premise of the argument more or less is intended to make a certain ideology appear to be the only practical value, and given it is based on a reasoning that everyone 'should' have, disagreeing with common sense gun control means you are illogical.

I've seen some debates where pro gun control candidates have made this argument, and pro gun rights candidates did not have what I consider to be a strong response. If you were to get backed into a corner with this argument, and the quality of your counterargument could affect how other undecided Citizens begin to form opinions regarding the 2A, how would you respond? If this topic came up in a debate, how would you like to hear a pro gun rights candidate respond?

----------------

I have moved in the direction of pointing out that a consensus of ideology within a certain group of people (large and small alike), even when promoted as a conclusion of common reason, is not necessarily strategically or systematically logical. More importantly, it is not necessarily ethical.

I try to point out that the sensible treatment of a fever was once bloodletting, and anyone who thought the world was not flat was a fool. Some of the worst atrocities in human history have come out of a consensus that is justified by 'common sense' reasoning; to name just a few: human enslavement, genocide, and human experimentation without consent. One could even make an argument that it is common sense to oppress certain human rights in certain scenarios, but regardless of systematic justification of the simplicity in implementation or outcome, it's still immoral.

Consequently, if a candidate is justifying gun control with the 'common sense' argument, Voters should be cautious of this candidate because of just how short-sighted and ethically ambiguous this type of argument can be, and how 'common sense laws' often do NOT have the best interests of the public in mind.


I'm curious to hear other perspectives! (and I hope this is the correct subtopic to post this in!)
 
Does anyone else find this whole "common sense gun control" argument to be frustrating and kind of dumb? The basic premise of the argument more or less is intended to make a certain ideology appear to be the only practical value, and given it is based on a reasoning that everyone 'should' have, disagreeing with common sense gun control means you are illogical.

Yes -- that is the specific intent behind that choice of words.

Same reason why we have terms like "pro choice", and the recent change from "gun control" to "gun safety".
 
I've discussed this before with people who aren't particularly for or against guns. I ask them questions like, when was the last time you heard of someone get bayoneted? The sort of 'common sense' regulations that ban bayonets for example are usually easily unveiled as useless legislation that only restricts rights.

One thing I HATE HATE HATE, that 'Comical Conservative' picture that says Chicago had 1,806 murders in whatever year, and similar viral or made-up propaganda. Pro-gun activists have enough excellent data to support our positions without made-up inflated numbers, and a gun control advocate can easily turn someone on the fence against guns by pointing it out.

I have moved in the direction of pointing out that a consensus of ideology within a certain group of people (large and small alike), even when promoted as a conclusion of common reason, is not necessarily strategically or systematically logical. More importantly, it is not necessarily ethical.

I try to point out that the sensible treatment of a fever was once bloodletting, and anyone who thought the world was not flat was a fool.

You should post more often. I often get in, ah, heated debates on THR because I point out when people can't support their position except that it's a consensus opinion. I actually used 'the Earth is flat' earlier today as an example of a widely observable untruth. :scrutiny:
 
I was never great at high school debate, but looking up the list of fallacies brought me to something called the "unwarranted assumption fallacy" in which the conclusion of an argument is based on a premise that is false or unwarranted. We have to demolish the premise that domestic tranquility=gun safety = gun control = gun confiscation, and that that is some how common sense. One of the false premises is that guns are so dangerous and gun "violence" is so rampant that gun owners can't be trusted with that power.

OK discuss... we need quick, insightful, one-sentence arguments that dismantle the false premise.
 
OK discuss... we need quick, insightful, one-sentence arguments that dismantle the false premise.

How about, "my 90 pound sister can't fight off an attacker without a gun."
 
I'm opposed to more gun laws. The existing ones aren't even enforced.

Today I had a guy call with a case number, "Any detective, line 1". Apparently my agency charged him with weapon misconduct and took his 6 firearms as evidence. The county attorney turned down the case, because California never produced certified copies of the guy's prior felony convictionS (plural) for burglary and forgery.

The guy wanted his guns back. I kid you not. The balls on him. He's still a felon, even absent a new case.

At any rate, while I oppose gun laws, I also have to admit that gun owner responsibility & respect is at an all time low (IMO).

As a society we have thrown away a lot of our morality, our behavior is absurd, we idolize thugs and idiots, legalize drugs, invite riots, etc... There is a high probability "control" will manifest itself as gun restrictions if people keep doing stupid stuff.

I don't embrace it, don't want it, but I fear it coming.
 
Statistics alone prove a pro-gun person's point better than anything else. That being said, the reason that the anti-gun crowd uses the "common sense" gun control argument (which is not, I repeat not based on common sense as it ignores vital stats proving that more gun control does not mean a safer society) is that most people vote based on emotions and not logic or reason.
 
the only common sense i need is that my gun protects my life better than a no guns sign.

just like studying protects your GPA better than a note to yourself to study, just like wearing your seatbelt makes you safer than reading about your seatbelt in your car manual.
 
"Common sense" nearly always means "position that I find intuitive but cannot defend in analytical detail, so please don't make me show my work."
 
If someone starts talking about "common sense gun control," try to pin them down on what their ideal end point on guns would be. If they were honest, they would admit that they would prefer a society completely without guns. That's the inevitable logic of gun control. Each step that doesn't work leads to a more draconian step that still doesn't work, until all the guns are driven underground.

"Common sense gun control" is a way to mollify the unwary. Gun-rights people are too smart to fall for it, but not the vast pool of uninformed people in the middle. We need to keep pounding on the fact that this is a slippery slope, and that the end point is no guns at all.

The issue has become too polarized for compromise. It would be different if the reformers were indeed "reasonable" and were operating in good faith. They are not operating in good faith, and so have to be opposed on every proposal that they put forth.
 
"Common sense" laws are part of a strategy known as "incrementalism" and has been used for decades to errode your rights over time, which is much more readily accepted, as each new infringment is not measured against freedom, but the state of affairs of the day before, so looks so small as to be harmless.

The anti-gun crowd and their political ilk primary wepaon is to mischaraterize those who wish to preserve freedom, and to demonize and ridicule, as their logical arguments have no merit.

If you oppose magazine caps or "assault weapons" bans, you favor killing children.

If you oppose useless background checks, you want crminals to be able to buy guns from dealers.

If you are in favor of concealed carry, you want crminals to be able to "lawfully" carry.

If you oppose registartion, it's because you have something to hide.

Let's face it, every time someone is mudered, they blame it on the NRA as though that is what they stand for.

There are two kinds of arguments. One where thinking people weigh the merits of each other's thoughts, and one where two people just want to "win" an argument. If you cannot pursuade one another to consider each other's view, an argument is little more than an exchange of insults which only benefits the credibility of the side that shows the most class.
 
"Common sense" laws are part of a strategy known as "incrementalism" and has been used for decades to errode your rights over time, which is much more readily accepted, as each new infringment is not measured against freedom, but the state of affairs of the day before, so looks so small as to be harmless.

The anti-gun crowd and their political ilk primary wepaon is to mischaraterize those who wish to preserve freedom, and to demonize and ridicule, as their logical arguments have no merit.

If you oppose magazine caps or "assault weapons" bans, you favor killing children.

If you oppose useless background checks, you want crminals to be able to buy guns from dealers.

If you are in favor of concealed carry, you want crminals to be able to "lawfully" carry.

If you oppose registartion, it's because you have something to hide.

Let's face it, every time someone is mudered, they blame it on the NRA as though that is what they stand for.

There are two kinds of arguments. One where thinking people weigh the merits of each other's thoughts, and one where two people just want to "win" an argument. If you cannot pursuade one another to consider each other's view, an argument is little more than an exchange of insults which only benefits the credibility of the side that shows the most class.
and the founders were well aware of this, hence their use of the word 'infringed', because they knew this is how it would happen, one itty bitsy bit at a time.
 
Congratulations, you've proven our opposition is founded in amoral altruism, quite possibly the darkest and most dangerous of human motivations.* An ideology so self conflicted and chameleon that its propoents often divine it on the fly, ad hoc, when arguing (that is why there are so many antigun arguments, but only a relative handful in favor). In the hands of a skilled, experienced debater, and a neutral forum, they are quickly made to look like fools. Which is why those are avoided at all costs, since morphing emotional arguments are mkst compelling in the absence of an opponent.

*Every. single. last. great tragedy of human making was justified as altruism at the time. Every. last. one.

TCB
 
I'm opposed to more gun laws. The existing ones aren't even enforced.

Today I had a guy call with a case number, "Any detective, line 1". Apparently my agency charged him with weapon misconduct and took his 6 firearms as evidence. The county attorney turned down the case, because California never produced certified copies of the guy's prior felony convictionS (plural) for burglary and forgery.

The guy wanted his guns back. I kid you not. The balls on him. He's still a felon, even absent a new case.

At any rate, while I oppose gun laws, I also have to admit that gun owner responsibility & respect is at an all time low (IMO).

As a society we have thrown away a lot of our morality, our behavior is absurd, we idolize thugs and idiots, legalize drugs, invite riots, etc... There is a high probability "control" will manifest itself as gun restrictions if people keep doing stupid stuff.

I don't embrace it, don't want it, but I fear it coming.

Quoted for truth!

A big "AMEN!" to the section in red, especially!
 
The use of terms like "common sense gun control" and "reasonable restrictions" is an attempt to attach negative implications to any who oppose them. (Forgive me for not being more articulate, but I'm still coffee-ing up.)

Examples:
1. "Common sense gun control" = "Those who oppose this lack common sense."
2. "Reasonable restrictions" = "Those who oppose these are unreasonable."

I'm with ATLDave on this:
ATLDave said:
"Common sense" nearly always means "position that I find intuitive but cannot defend in analytical detail, so please don't make me show my work."

As far as statistics, . . . My concern for statistics is very limited. Politicians worry about how many people die. I worry about who dies. Yes, firearms are deadly weapons. That's why I carry one. Yes, umpteen thousand people die in firearm-related incidents every year. The few anti-gunners in my circles are rarely able to answer questions like: (1) How many of those deaths were the result of lawful SD or HD? (2) How many of those occurred while the decedent was in the process of committing a violent felony? (3) How many of those deaths were accidental, but involved drugs or alcohol?

I can often supply some of those statistics for them, but they don't really matter to me. I have a wife and daughter. I have a duty and responsibility to protect them and myself. The statistics have no bearing on that.
 
A short response? How about...

"So you mean all the gun laws presently on the books are not 'common sense' laws? Good observation. Let's repeal them and start fresh."
 
"Since violence with firearms is actually quite rare, sensationalism notwithsatanding, the common sense thing is to not get suckered by fallacious arguments."

Something like this, but that rolls off the tongue better.
 
"Common sense" nearly always means "position that I find intuitive but cannot defend in analytical detail, so please don't make me show my work."

Absolutely true, I can't stand arguments that rely solely on " common sense". As an engineer, folks always have "common sense" comments on your work that conveniently don't involve calculations or in depth investigations. So it is for the gun control crowd as well, fortunately fear and strong feelings don't have much of an impact on sound logical conclusions. Unfortunately logic and impartial numbers are less important than strong feelings and convictions when it comes to voting and governance.
 
Last edited:
Common sense? not practicing "catch and release" with criminals, that makes sense to me but I don't know if it's all that common anymore.
 
"...disagreeing with common sense gun control means you are illogical..." Tends to be the attitude of those who think you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm. They also tend to ignore the fact that the issue isn't the inanimate object that needs controlling. It's the criminal use of said inanimate object that needs controlling.
However, it's less expensive and easier to pass a law that blames that inanimate object. Thus making it look like politicians are doing something about crime. Been going on up here since 1978.
 
However, it's less expensive and easier to pass a law that blames that inanimate object. Thus making it look like politicians are doing something about crime. Been going on up here since 1978.
Yeah, feel bad for you guys up there. Of course, we're only slightly freer here in Illinois. :eek:

While your observation about passing laws is true to some extent, the real goal is always disarmament. They simply cannot control us as long as we have the means to resist. This is true in the US, Canada, or anywhere.

"Common sense" dictates that a free people must be armed if they wish to remain free. As it happens, there is also plenty of historical data to support this.
 
when all else fails....I looked it up:

The Common Sense Fallacy relies on the vague notion of "obviousness", what we believe or expect is true derived from our personal experience. The fallacy gives too much weight to Common Sense in drawing conclusions--at the expense of evidence and reasoning.

Common Sense is the lazy, comfortable dwelling place of demagoguery. Its an appeal to populist notions instead of rational, reasoned, evidence based thought.

Since it is unsubstantiated and un-examined, It can be logically demolished by asking for evidence.
 
The current trending term of "gun violence" really irritates me. Do they not care about violence that occurs with a knife or a bat or whatever?

I mean the term itself is excluding some things while including others.

Woman shoots rapist with gun= gun violence= BAD= we must do something to stop "gun violence"
But rapist kills woman with knife= we must stop...."gun violence"

How about lets try to stop criminal violence.


I'm not the biggest Ted Nudget fan but when he asked Piers Morgan why he only cared about "gun" violence it was priceless. Piers replied "I do care about all violence" and Ted just said "you must not, you never talk about it" (my paraphrase)

Bingo!
 
I always equate "common sense gun control" with:
  • "common sense racial segregation"
  • "common sense slavery"
  • "common sense anti-sodomy laws"
  • "common sense state mandated religion"
Of course at various times, ALL of these things have been seen as "common sense" practices or measures.

It always drives the gun control cult into an insane rage... which is of course my intent. When they get mad, they finally get honest... about their motivations. At that point, they're awfully hard to tell apart from David Duke or the Westboro Baptist "Church". Observers frequently take note of this...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top