Saying something aloud doesn't make it true.

I keep seeing these same tropes in the gun-control debate, repeated as if they are true and relevant.  Todd Starnes repeats all three in rapid succession in his article entitled "Freedom, Tyranny and Granny's .38".  As the title suggests, Starnes believes that the only thing that stands between freedom and goverment tyranny is a gun.  I find this to be a sad commentary on what Starnes thinks of modern democracy--there are several institutions in place which are intended precisely to stand between freedom and tyranny: the voting booth, the Constitution, the system of checks and balances.  I don't feel the need to take guns of this list, but I find it strange that it would be not the first item on Starnes' list but the only item. 

As far as the first claim above--it is true that new gun legislation which criminalizes possession of an 'assault weapon' (however that is ultimately defined) or a large capacity magazine is not legislation that is specifically aimed at criminals, but neither is it specifically aimed at law-abiding gun owners.  Indeed, whether it is a good law or a bad one, it is aimed at all owners of such criminalized objects.  And as it turns out, most of the guns used in mass shooting in the last 30 years were obtained legally.

With regard to 'dismantling' the Constitution, the suggestion seems to be that any change to the Constitution equals 'dismantling'.  Nobody is suggesting that the 2nd Amendment be removed altogether.  Rather, gun-control advocates are seeking to limit the rights afforded by the amendment.  If you object to any change to the Constitution, you might want to look up the word amendment.  Incidentally (and as I've repeated several times), many of your constitutional rights are limited, even that most fundamental right: speech.

The solution to this problem won't be easy, but it will be easier without all this static noise competing for our serious attention.

Gun-control continued.

There are a number of arguments which continue to appear in interviews and internet memes that seem, prima facie, relevant and conclusive, but that are easily seen to be void when one looks behind the curtain.  (N.B.: Once again, I am not arguing here in favor of gun-control, nor against gun-control--I am in favor of a reasonable conversation.)  The first comes from Ted Cruz, newly elected senator from Texas.  Cruz appeared on Fox News Sunday to declare that gun-control is unconstitutional.

To be fair, I have not been able to watch the entire interview, so I cannot say whether or not Cruz explained his meaning in more depth.  Nevertheless, Cruz's position cannot be supported either on philosophic grounds nor on historical grounds.  First, while the constitution guarantees certain rights, those rights belong to individuals, whose interest are sometimes in conflict.  Thus, freedom of speech is limited--the age-old example is that you cannot scream fire in a crowded movie theater knowing there is no fire.  Certain kinds of speech are restricted, indeed, to protect people from the abuse of the freedom of speech itself.  Further, the supreme court (whose job it is to interpret the constitution) have decided several cases which allow for the regulation and restriction of gun possession.

The second argument which is floating around on Facebook is a thoughtless meme:

This meme suggests that new gun regulations will not deter criminals from possessing and using guns.  The reason it seems convincing is because it is true--laws don't prevent crime.  Indeed, the simplest way to prevent crime (from this perspective) is to annul all laws (if nothing is deemed criminal, there are no crimes to be committed, no criminals to send to jail).  The meme, unfortunately, fails to recognize the distinction between legislation and enforcement.  It may prove to be impossible to enforce new gun-control legislation, but then that is the argument that should be made here (though it would not look as funny on an e-card). 

Perhaps the longest sustained non sequitur ever.

There are many sides to the gun-control debate that is raging right now, and I don't mean that there are sides that are for greater regulation and sides against (thought that is also true).  What I mean is that some are arguing for banning this sort of weapon but not that; others are arguing that high-capacity magazines should be regulated rather than the guns themselves; others are interested in discussing background checks rather than criminalizing possession.  One of the more interesting--and more subtle--parts of the debate has to do with the term 'assault weapon'.  The term is hazy, and often mistaken for a synonym of 'automatic'.  In fact, the current legal definition (at least in practice) includes semi-automatic weapons.  This, however, may lead one to think that an assault weapons ban would include all semi-automatic weapons.  However, many (most?) handguns are also semi-automatic (which simply means that the gun automatically loads a new cartridge after firing).  It seems clear that part of the gun-control debate will have to include a clearer categorization of gun-types (this would be a good idea even if no new legislation follows).  Maureen Martin posted an article at the Daily Caller last week explaining intelligently the problem with the current legal nomenclature regarding guns.  You would think the natural conclusion of such an article would be that we need to sort out the classification of gun-types before we discuss regulation.  Instead, what follows does not follow at all (hence, the non sequitur in the title of this post).

Martin may be correct, but usually what is contained must be mentioned in the premises--otherwise your conclusion is entirely irrelevant.  Nevertheless, her article contains no statistics concerning gun restrictions and violence, gun restrictions and mass murder, gun restrictions and gun murder rates.  She finishes my asking us to "carefully consider overly simplistic cures."  I think I'll take her advice and carefully and with consideration ignore her article.

Gun debate begins with reason.

The week and  half since the shooting in Newtown has been a hazy fog of half baked arguments regarding gun control and prevention.  The conversation (if you can call it that) has been cacophonous, with every side of the debate speaking to his or her own concerns without addressing the concerns of the other participants.  Some are afraid that their guns will be taken away--as if there is a real risk that the Second Amendment will be repealed (and as if anyone is actually calling for such a repeal).  Others are suggesting that teachers be armed.  The NRA is calling for armed guards in our schools, claiming that new gun regulations won't make any difference--after all, there are so many other weapons Lanza could have used to commit his crime (maybe a crossbow?).  Still others are pointing out that there were armed guards at Columbine, and that that did not prevent the Colorado massacre.  Finally, Lindsey Graham doesn't think there is anything he or his fellow lawmakers can do to prevent a massacre.

The problem is that no one has set out the ground rules of the debate.  That is to say, when one claims that gun-control won't work, they are obliged to first indicate what working means.  To argue that it won't have prevented Newtown is nonsense since Newtown has already occurred.  To argue that armed guards didn't prevent Columbine is likewise facile to the point of being meaningless--Columbine did occur.  The question must be set out clearly, and it must be agreed to, before a fruitful conversation can take place--and that question can only be: will new gun-control laws reduce the number of these sorts of shootings (an perhaps reduce gun-violence altogether)*.  Anyone who argues that gun-control laws would not have prevented Newtown is being disingenuous and should be dismissed outright.

*To be sure, the question has address, eventually, whether or not such restrictions violate the Second Amendment.

Look who's talking!

"How can you tell me smoking is bad for me when you smoke two packs a day?"  "Simple, because it's true."  Hypocrisy is a moral failing, not a logical one.  This is the example I use to explain one of the lowest sorts of logical fallacy (though it has a fancy Latin name): tu quoque.  John Nolte uses precisely this fallacy to introduce his discussion of the role the media plays in motivating shooters such as Adam Lanza.

Though this be one of the lowest forms of fallacy (in my opinion, to be sure), it is not the only fallacy committed by Nolte in this same post.  If you don't believe Nolte's claim that the promise of media fame contributes to the actions of a Lanza, you "simply [don't] want to believe it."  Nolte makes no argument here, he simply attacks the motivation of a hypothetical detractor--a type of ad hominem fallacy, though I cannot decide if it is a sort of poisoning the well or circumstantial (I'm open to suggestions).  In addition, Nolte bifurcates on the question of media coverage, suggesting that the media should ignore such news events altogether.  He could have made a very reasonable case for a policy that would call for news outlets to not show the face or mug shots of alleged shooters (incidentally, his article begins with a huge head shot of Lanza).  Instead, he calls for a media blackout.  Indeed, his comparison between the role of guns and the role of the media fails to distinguish between final cause or motive and instrumental cause.  Without such a distinction, the comparison is meaningless.