[lit-ideas] Re: Feeling Safe isn't safe
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 20:37:58 -0300
Lawrence Helm wrote:
"Follow the bouncing ball, Phil. Here is the article again that began this
train. You obviously didn't read it."
No, I hadn't read it. So, let's follow the bouncing ball.
The article has seven paragraphs. In the first paragraph, Barone notes that
the Virginia Tech murders led the New York Times and Economist to call for
stricter gun control laws. He also notes that "Democratic officeholders"
didn't join in with this call, somehow divining that "privately" they agree
with the call but don't want to be hurt by the issue as they believe there
were in the past.
In the second paragraph, Barone claims that an overlooked fact is that there
are two levels at which discussions of gun control are taking place. The
first, at the federal level, has involved "some modest restrictions". At
the second level, that of individual states, Barone notes that the trend has
been in the opposite direction focusing on Florida allowing concealed weapon
permits. These permits are given to those who meet a number of different
qualifications, a move that has been copied by a number of other states.
Note, however, that Barone has shifted the larger issue of gun control to
the more specific issue of concealed weapon permits.
In the third paragraph, Barone admits that when the concealed weapons law
was passed he envisioned shooting galleries. Instead, he notes that very
few permits have been revoked and rarely have people with permits used guns
unlawfully. He concludes that ordinary law-abiding people are pretty
trustworthy. This, however, isn't quite an accurate conclusion since the
qualifications for getting the permit are not merely that of being
'ordinary' and 'law-abiding'. Rather, the conclusion might be that the
qualifications in place for receiving a permit are satisfactory. This
switch from 'qualified' to 'ordinary' is worth noting because it will be
critical later in the article.
In the fourth paragraph, Barone notes that many others, including Democrat
lawmakers, shared his fears but have since changed their minds. The laws
have been successful in that the people who have the permits have turned out
to be responsible.
In the fifth paragraph, Barone turns to Virginia, which has a
concealed-weapons law. However, Virginia Tech had been declared a 'gun-free
zone' so that even those with permits could not bring guns on campus.
Barone then makes the disingenuous lament that unfortunately this zone
wasn't gun free. What makes it disingenuous is that 'gun free' doesn't mean
that it is impossible to bring guns but rather that it is not allowed.
Barone concludes the paragraph with the remarkable, but unsubstantiated
claim, that on other campuses killers had been stopped by people who were
permitted to carry guns. For other claims, Barone gave details but here,
for the key point in his argument, there are none, just the claim.
In the sixth paragraph, Barone turns to the federal debate, which he
suggests is moving to be more in line with that found at the level of
states.
In the seventh and concluding paragraph, Barone allows that there is room
for gun regulation where this includes mental health checks. The point of
this regulation would be to ensure that guns don't get into the "wrong
hands". Here, Barone moves the debate away from the granting of concealed
weapon permits to keeping guns away from dangerous people, concluding that
where gun ownership is widespread, we would be safer than in a 'gun-free
zone'. We are not told what the connection is between the responsible
people who are qualified for the concealed weapons permit and people who can
legally buy a gun. The implicit assumption is that what is true of those
who qualify for concealed weapons permits is true of anyone who can legally
purchase a gun. This implicit connection is made stronger by the reference
to 'gun-free zones' since Barone has told us that there are cases where
people with permits stopped killers.
Barone, therefore, tries to conflate two different arguments. In the first
argument, Barone convincingly shows that those who qualify for concealed
weapon permits are responsible gun owners. In the second argument, Barone
claims that widespread gun ownership would stop killers like Cho. Barone
tries to connect the two by conflating 'qualified for concealed weapon
permit' and 'owns a gun'. Further, Barone gives no evidence that people
with permits are effective in stopping killers like Cho, and certainly no
evidence that merely owning a gun is also effective.
Therefore, this article contains two deeply flawed arguments. The first
draws a false comparison between gun owners qualified to carry concealed
weapons and gun owners in general. The second draws the false conclusion
that widespread gun ownership would be effective in stopping killers like
Cho.
I read the article, followed the bouncing ball, and shown that the article
is terrible.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
