Oddly enough, for all of the pro-gun control blogs I've written over the past few years, one has appeared to garner more attention (and comments) than any other. It was written on April 12th of last year, is entitled, "A man tries to make gun-control proponents look dumb through his 'smart' aleck experiment, but makes himself look dumb in the process," and can be read at the following URL:
http://thekind-heartedsmartaleck.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-man-tries-to-make-gun-control.html
Just today, I received this comment in response to the blog and some follow-up comments which were made by readers and myself:
"Hey Numbnutz. Do you also want to ban alcohol bc of drunk drivers that kill people? I don't see you arguing that point."
"Numbnutz," eh? In a span of just 23 words, Critical Thinking professors would likely debate one another on just how many informal fallacies this individual committed. The probable number is between one and six (incomplete comparison, inconsistent comparison, argumentum ad hominem, ignoratio elenchi, moving the goalposts, and red herring).
First off, I'd like for the commentator to point out where exactly I called for the banning of guns. I have a feeling he'll be looking for quite some time. If I believe it should be mandatory for citizens to pass writing, vision, and driving tests before being handed a license, does that mean I believe vehicles should be banned? No. The same goes for guns. If law-abiding citizens pass these very tests, they should be permitted to drive, and permitted to own a firearm.
Another problem with this poster's comment is that it brings a new variable into the picture for one subject but not for the other. Nowhere in my blog (or in the following comments) did I mention anything about alcohol. If I had made an argument for gun-control when discussing the dangers of firing a gun under the influence of the substance and didn't mention such a thing when comparing firearms to cars, then this commentator would have a valid point. However, either he didn't actually read the blog in its entirety or decided to place words in my mouth, because I didn't make that error. If he wants to stick with his argument and be in defense of guns in doing so, he'd have to say, "Hey Numbnutz. Do you really think shooting firearms while drunk is dangerous? What about drunk drivers that kill people? I don't see you arguing that point." However, this diversion from the points which were made in the blog opens a whole new can of worms. If the commentator really wants to travel that route, then he could make the following comparisons:
- "Texting while shooting isn't that dangerous. What about texting while driving?"
- "I shoot guns when I talk to my girlfriend on the phone all the time. What's so bad about that? What about talking on the phone while driving?"
- "So what if I eat a burger with one hand while firing a gun with the other? I only need one hand to fire a gun. If I were driving while eating the Big Mac, then I'd only have one hand on the wheel, when I should have two - even though I never put two hands on the wheel anyway."
- "Smoking while shooting is cool. It's especially fun when I try to shoot the end of the cigarette. What's worse is smoking in the car while driving - especially when I try to toss the cigarette out the window and it winds up on my lap."
- "Yeah, I put makeup on while at the shooting range! Don't judge me! At least I'm not doing it while driving!"
See what I mean?
The comment this poster was responding to said exactly this:
"Are you in favor of written, vision, and driving tests before one is able to attain a license? If so, why shouldn't there be similar-type tests in order to entrust a person with another potentially deadly weapon, such as a gun?"
There was absolutely nothing in there regarding alcohol. In conclusion, I suggest this poster takes his fallacies and enrolls himself into a Critical Thinking course, so he doesn't ironically call anyone a "numbnutz" again - all the while making himself appear to be one.
http://thekind-heartedsmartaleck.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-man-tries-to-make-gun-control.html
Just today, I received this comment in response to the blog and some follow-up comments which were made by readers and myself:
"Hey Numbnutz. Do you also want to ban alcohol bc of drunk drivers that kill people? I don't see you arguing that point."
"Numbnutz," eh? In a span of just 23 words, Critical Thinking professors would likely debate one another on just how many informal fallacies this individual committed. The probable number is between one and six (incomplete comparison, inconsistent comparison, argumentum ad hominem, ignoratio elenchi, moving the goalposts, and red herring).
First off, I'd like for the commentator to point out where exactly I called for the banning of guns. I have a feeling he'll be looking for quite some time. If I believe it should be mandatory for citizens to pass writing, vision, and driving tests before being handed a license, does that mean I believe vehicles should be banned? No. The same goes for guns. If law-abiding citizens pass these very tests, they should be permitted to drive, and permitted to own a firearm.
Another problem with this poster's comment is that it brings a new variable into the picture for one subject but not for the other. Nowhere in my blog (or in the following comments) did I mention anything about alcohol. If I had made an argument for gun-control when discussing the dangers of firing a gun under the influence of the substance and didn't mention such a thing when comparing firearms to cars, then this commentator would have a valid point. However, either he didn't actually read the blog in its entirety or decided to place words in my mouth, because I didn't make that error. If he wants to stick with his argument and be in defense of guns in doing so, he'd have to say, "Hey Numbnutz. Do you really think shooting firearms while drunk is dangerous? What about drunk drivers that kill people? I don't see you arguing that point." However, this diversion from the points which were made in the blog opens a whole new can of worms. If the commentator really wants to travel that route, then he could make the following comparisons:
- "Texting while shooting isn't that dangerous. What about texting while driving?"
- "I shoot guns when I talk to my girlfriend on the phone all the time. What's so bad about that? What about talking on the phone while driving?"
- "So what if I eat a burger with one hand while firing a gun with the other? I only need one hand to fire a gun. If I were driving while eating the Big Mac, then I'd only have one hand on the wheel, when I should have two - even though I never put two hands on the wheel anyway."
- "Smoking while shooting is cool. It's especially fun when I try to shoot the end of the cigarette. What's worse is smoking in the car while driving - especially when I try to toss the cigarette out the window and it winds up on my lap."
- "Yeah, I put makeup on while at the shooting range! Don't judge me! At least I'm not doing it while driving!"
See what I mean?
The comment this poster was responding to said exactly this:
"Are you in favor of written, vision, and driving tests before one is able to attain a license? If so, why shouldn't there be similar-type tests in order to entrust a person with another potentially deadly weapon, such as a gun?"
There was absolutely nothing in there regarding alcohol. In conclusion, I suggest this poster takes his fallacies and enrolls himself into a Critical Thinking course, so he doesn't ironically call anyone a "numbnutz" again - all the while making himself appear to be one.
Comments
Post a Comment