Seeing the Argument: Conor Friedersdorf Edition

I just read this article, where Conor says that:

“It’s only been a month since I decided that simply quoting Rush Limbaugh verbatim is the easiest way to discredit him, and the best way to force his apologists to confront the ugly reality of his indefensible program. I didn’t think I’d revisit it so quickly, having been pretty busy detailing the Obama Administration’s ongoing assault on states’ rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law. It’s unending work.”

“But then a reader tipped me off to this Limbaugh gem:

Well, it’s a good point. You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun.*”

Conor, frankly, as a journalism major one would hope you’d be more attuned to the actual arguments wrapped in the rhetorical dressing. So, a quick lesson in polemics, for everyone out there who thinks that provocative language by itself proves the falsity of an argument.

First, let’s figure out what the argument is. I’m no logic-diagramming genius, but we’ll give it a shot.

Is Rush proposing shooting women in the vaginas, as a commenter on the article posited?  No, he is not, and looking at his statement that way is amazingly narrow-minded and fault-finding.

Rush is saying that those who desire that abortion be legal are also the people most stridently opposed to any sort of gun usage or gun freedoms, and that this is entirely inconsistent. Hypocritical, even. He’s inviting listeners to unravel this inconsistency themselves by figuring out the values at stake in each issue and seeing how they conflict.

This, incidentally, is entirely consistent with the range of positions associated with the current ideological spectrum. Liberals/progressives/self-styled-intellectuals are typically pro-abortion (“right to choose” “women’s body” etc) and anti-gun (see also the entire current post-sandy-hook debate.)

The question is about which position is more important to those people.

Obviously, wanting to shoot babies is horrific. But abortions happen every day and are perfectly legal. Congress has so far banned partial-birth and late-term abortions, but what about early ones? What if the beating hearts of the prenatal kiddies had to be extinguished with a bullet, instead of being sucked out with a vacuum? Would the pro-abortion folks insist that they still have their right to “choose”?

Or would the gun-control advocates win out, and prevent abortions because guns are too dangerous and unnecessary for the citizenry to have?

What’s the priority? What are the values? There are none. If you advocate a “right to choose”, i.e. killing babies, but can’t bear the thought of people owning their own guns, “for the children of Sandy Hook”–also a “right”, and one that actually happens to be explicitly mentioned in the constitution, unlike abortion–then you’re a hypocrite because you are for your pet liberties but against others that you don’t like, even when the results are exactly the same.

If you are against guns in order to avoid killing people but are pro-abortion, then you’re inconsistent. If you value individual rights (right to choose) yet are against personal liberty in owning firearms, you are inconsistent. Yet this is the position many liberals have.

Seems to me that there’s major intellectual inconsistency there, and that Rush’s simple statement sums up the two conflicting positions nicely, albeit in an inflammatory and provocative way. But that’s his job. Your job is to see the argument, instead about wondering the mechanics of shooting women in the vaj.

One Question For Our Lawmakers: A Case Study In Hubris

As I’m a former military type and enjoy owning and occasionally using firearms, related items to such catch my eye in the news. This morning I saw this bill proposal from CA Senator Dianne Feinstein. Text includes the following bon mots (commentary in bold):

• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
  • 120 specifically-named firearms
    
  • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
    
  • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
• Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. 
  • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
  • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
  • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
• Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
  • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
  • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
  • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
• Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
  • Background check of owner and any transferee;
  • Type and serial number of the firearm;
  • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
  • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
  • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

There are also citations about effects of the 1994 gun ban, which may or not be strictly causal in nature. But that’s besides the point.

As usual, I’m not too enthusiastic about poorly-thought-out, ostensibly-well-intentioned-but-ignorant-of-reality policies, of which this is but one example, and of which fairly thoughtful rebuttals have been written.

So, one question: What–exactly–are the intended effects of this legislation? And, as a corollary: when and how will we know whether it is successful?

Actually, I’m pretty sure that should be asked  about all legislation before it’s passed.

This is important, because anybody who cannot define success is either a) being disingenuous about the true intent (which is almost certainly not minimizing gun-related-deaths) of the legislation, or b) completely and willfully decoupling the intent of the policy from the actual effects based on the assumption that currently fashionable intellectual trends (that guns are bad) justify imposing legal remedies on vast swathes of the population.

Do we ever see these things with sunset clauses, allowing for the possibility that the legislation might need at some point a re-affirming of its validity? Nope. The central planners legislators operate on the presumption that their acts will remain as well fitted to the times as they were the day of passing, notwithstanding that those same legislators are more than happy to creatively interpret the founding documents as they see fit in their updated, contemporary wisdom.

Judgments and questions based on external, empirical validation are the ones that intellectuals never pose, much less answer; the intent and presumption of superior knowledge is enough to justify the enactment of a policy affecting the lives of millions of citizens. The hubris is disgusting.

What’s a “military characteristic,” anyway?

The New Feminist Perspective on Gun Control

In the aftermath of the mass media hysteria regarding the Sandy Hook shooting and the reflexive gun-control efforts, I figured my two cents wouldn’t be needed what with all the punditrous masturbation going on. However, I’ve found a niche piece of commentary, so consider this:

Guns, fundamentally speaking, project power.

They take away much of the advantage of physical strength from the strong and put an equalizing force in the hands of weaker people.

Who, then, are–on average–the weaker people among us?

The first answer that comes to mind is women and children, and sometimes old people.

So, let’s say we further restrict gun ownership. Let’s say handguns and common varmint rifles are restricted or made impossible to buy.

Once weapons have become more inaccessible, then the weaker people will not have access to a source of force with which to protect themselves. As this occurs, other, more basic and primal traits will become more important, such as sheer physical strength and aggression, in matters of physical security.

Therefore, taking away or restricting guns is taking away or restricting the force available for women to protect themselves, which amounts to an assault on a woman’s right (as a person) to defend herself.

Or, in other words, disarming the citizenry is equivalent to disfranchising women of self-protection.

The underlying assumption of gun control is that guns are not necessary for protection or self-reliance, or more explicitly that they’re not needed because the government can provide adequate force for the safety of all citizens. If that’s not the case–and empirically, it hasn’t and can’t—gun control proponents are logically (in consequence of their poorly-thought out stances) in favor of increased violence against women.

Now, think of the last time you heard feminists/progressives/guncontrollers raise that point. Hypocrites.

Chew on that.

More guns (!=) more danger

WordPress didn’t let me use proper “<>” notation for “not-equal-to” in the title. Anyway…

The second item coming out of the Aurora massacre which struck me was the general reaction to guns. Now, of course we’re going to see the debate kick up again about whether, or in what form, guns ought to be regulated. On balance the reactions have been rational.

However, take a look at this item, in which a “copycat” got arrested and had a huge stockpile of weapons, seen below.

I feel unsafe from here, no doubt

Some of the more astute readers will no doubt be able to identify every weapon in the stockpile, but it looks like:

1) ~5x AR-15 or similar variants (.223 military-grade rifles, commonly used for varmint-shooting)

2) 1x AK-47 knockoff, but probably chambered for .223 instead of 7.62mm

3) 10 handguns of varying calibers/models, but the 1911 sticks out the most.

4) 1-2x shotties (the rifle in the top left of the table is questionable)

5) 2x muskets, maybe bolt action .30-06 or the nagants / mausers / etc.

Now, I’m not a firearms expert, but that’s a rough outline. So we count ~21 weapons in the picture (25 total from the article). My question is this, particularly in the context of gun control: what about this picture is more menacing than seeing a rifle and a handgun in someone’s house?

The knee-jerk reaction is to say that this guy is more dangerous because he’s got more weapons. No. Some people just buy weapons the way others get tattoos, or car upgrades, or baseball cards: because it’s fun and guys like machinery, especially well-crafted functional machinery.

However, the amount of threat is directly proportional to the number of well-placed rounds someone can fire. Reportedly, James Holmes used a 100-round magazine on an AR-15 style rifle. That made him more dangerous because it cut down on magazine changes (at least until it jammed as such magazines are prone to do).

But this Maryland guy could not have physically carried 21 weapons, much less the ammunition required to operate them. He might have been able to carry and use 2 or 3 of them, tops.  Ammunition is heavy and hard to carry. The weapons themselves are bulky and unwieldy. There reason that most soldiers only carry one weapon is because any more than that is very difficult to actually use, and every firearm requires a certain amount of training to be proficient anyway.

So any regulation on the number of firearms or type in this case would not have limited what this fellow could have done. He could inflict more damage carrying one well-maintained rifle and a holstered 1911 than going commando-style with an entire arsenal.

The shock value of seeing all this stuff laid out is meant to provoke people into thinking that this sort of collection is excessive and needs to be regulated. Yet “lots of guns” does not equal “lots of danger.” Here’s the thing: for what we’d want to prevent, this array of firepower is excessive, and we shouldn’t worry about it.