Tactics of desperation

In a debate, the strength of one’s argument can often be assessed based on the desperation of those presenting the opposing argument. When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms (RTKBA), it is quite evident that some of those in the anti-gun crowd engage in underhanded tactics of desperation. The debate involving the RTKBA has always been more interesting to me than any other political topic for this very reason. When I mention “tactics of desperation,” I do not merely mean presenting one-sided statistics that favor one’s argument, because this is commonly how debate works in any topic. Rather, when I talk about “tactics of desperation,” I specifically refer to instances where those arguing for the anti-gun side will distort the truth, misrepresent the facts, or downright lie. Michael Moore’s 2002 propaganda piece “Bowling for Columbine” was a prime example of a multitude of these tactics of desperation in action. However, these tactics are not limited to far-left-wing extremists like Moore, and we can unfortunately see them in most (if not all) of the anti-gun groups. Allow me to provide some examples:

1. Anti-gun organizations, such as the Million Mom March, report ‘statistics’ that “eight children die every day due to firearms.” This is more than a mere “twisting” of the statistics: This is a downright lie. A “child” has a specific definition, inasmuch as the term refers to those in the prepubescent age group (usually below the age of twelve or thirteen). However, when we look as the “studies” where the aforementioned statistics came from, we see that “children” are defined as those less than age TWENTY. Hence, this is a blatant misrepresentation of the term child, and thus an act of desperation by the anti-gun crowd.
2. The anti-gun crowd mentions the term "semi-automatic assault weapon" . This is a term commonly repeated by the Brady Campaign, and it is another act of desperation, since such a term is a misnomer, akin to taking a “dry shower.” By definition, an “assault weapon” is a fully automatic or burst fire weapon. The fact that a weapon is semi-automatic completely negates the possibility of it being an “assault weapon.” The anti-gun crowd was so bold that this term was used in 1994 by anti-gun congressmen in their “1994 Assault Weapons Ban.” The reason why anti-gun people can repeatedly get away with this is because many of those who do not own guns have no idea of what a “semi-automatic” is. Thus, their untrained ears ignore this term, and instead focus on the loaded term “assault weapon.”
3. The statement from Kellerman’s paper [New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60] referring that “a homeowner's gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintance, than it was used to kill someone in self-defense” is commonly repeated by anti-gun organizations. However, this study’s conclusion ignores the fact that its own data also suggests that non-gun owners are 99 times more likely to kill and family member, friend, or acquaintance than an intruder. Despite the fact that this study that was published over 24 years ago has been debunked many times, it is still repeated as fact by those in anti-gun groups.

I could go on and on, but I think that you get my point. Thus, my questions are as follows:
1. Why do you think it is necessary for major anti-gun organizations such as the Million Mom March, Brady Campaign, and others to resort to such devious tactics to prove their point? If they had a legitimate argument, couldn’t they get their point across without deceptions as those mentioned above?
2. Can you find examples of pro-gun groups, such as the NRA or Gun Owners of America, where similar flagrantly dishonest tactics are used? If not, then why don’t you think so?
3. This last question is to those who espouse an anti-gun ideology. Do you condemn the shady strategy of lying and deception that is so common in all of the major anti-gun organizations?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

 

Is it ok to call some semiauto weapons an assault rifle?

 

That's wonderful: You can cut and paste nonsense. Next time however, how about answering the simple questions that I posted?

It seems that you fail to understand what a "loaded question" is. I presented an observation of mine and a plethora of evidence to support it. Then I posted questions related to these observations and evidence. This is called "proper debating." However, if calling proper debate "loaded questions" makes you feel good, then who am I to stop you. I just wonder why you bothered wasting your time at all.

 

If you want to be honest and accurate, then no: It is not an appropriate term.

 

I've already explained to you that they were not loaded questions. In fact, question #2 gives anti-gun folk the opportunity to post tactics of deception from pro-gun organizations (if they can find any). Thus, the questions actually illustrate the epitome of fairness. To call them "loaded questions" is, in fact, a blatant deception

And maybe the Million Mom March will allow you to join their organization when you begin having your menstrual periods? Until then, maybe you should stop posting comments that make you look like an imbecile.

 

Yeah, I know. However, you are wrong: they are loaded questions.

No idea what that is and, I'm not a mum.

I hear your suggestion. I reject it (as it's loaded).

 

As a clarification to everyone: A loaded question by definition is a question which contains a controversial assumption such as a presumption of guilt. A traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" With that being said, I post 3 insightful questions that have not yet been asked. None of the 3 questions fit the definition above. Even if you are a member of an anti-gun group, I also give you a chance to find similar deceptions from pro-gun sites. Thus, there are two sides of this coin, and calling the questions "loaded" is disingenuous.

Second point: This is a political forum. There are many controversial topics here, and it would be idiotic to come here thinking that everyone will be 100% objective: That would be boring and defeat the purpose of debate (and thus defeat the purpose of having a "Political Forum"). I am arguing on the side of a pro-gun standpoint. Therefore, although I try to be as open-minded as possible, I am obviously approaching this issue from my personal viewpoint. I welcome anyone to answer my questions, and I will treat you and your answers with as much respect as you treat me and my questions.

 

Thank you.

I respect your loaded questions.

 

Another act of desperation by the anti-gun crowd is to make so-called studies of some aspect of gun ownership or gun carrying, but failing to distinguish between legal and illegal gun possession and/or carrying. Then they try to act as if the resultant figures apply to all who have guns.

Another is to fail to acknowledge well documented, published, statistics. Both TX & FL annually publish statistics on the entire population that have concealed carry permits, but the antis act like they don't exist.

 

Yes it is. The M16 is not a fully auto weapon and yet its proper classification is an assault rifle.

 

The original M-16 was select-fire capable of full-auto. This led to ammo wastage by the troops due to overuse of full-auto. The new models are burst-fire capable, meaning it will fire three rounds with one pull of the trigger. Semi-auto means one round per pull. Burst fire rifles are considered assault rifles because they fire more than one round with one trigger pull.

Civilian models of the M-16 are all semi-auto only, unless illegally converted.

 

You referred above to your only question out of the three that was not a loaded question fallacy.

I suggest that you become acquainted with the realities of this if you really expect a "fair" debate. So, stop the false accusations and apologize to the other member, because you are, indeed wrong as to this. They ARE loaded questions.

 

I'm on the pro gun side of things, and even I know they are, technically, loaded questions. Also it would have been nice if you had links in your OP to support your three examples.

That said, the other side could address the points they disagree with, as opposed to just having a nice troll.

I'll highlight the "loaded" bits.

 

None of the 3 questions were "loaded:" They were however, DIRECT.

A "loaded" question, by definition, contains a presumption of guilt. For example, if I were to ask some random person, "Have you stopped beating your wife," then this would be a loaded question because it presumes that the party answering the question is guilty. On the flip side, let us say that a man plead guilty of beating his wife, underwent a trial by a jury of his peers, was sentenced by a judge, and served 2 years in jail for his crimes. He (somehow) gets back together with his wife after his release from jail. I then go up to ask him, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" In this context, the question is not loaded: It is direct and a valid question.

Simply, direct questions are based on established facts while loaded questions are based on presumptions of guilt.

First, I suggest that you first understand the definition of a term before you start going on a nonsensical tangent. Second, debaters are SUPPOSED to present arguments from their own personal viewpoints. No debate thread on this entire forum is 100% objective and neutral. If it was objective and neutral, then it would be as boring and uninteresting as watching grass grow.
Third, my questions were extremely fair, and the fact that you and your buddy are harping about my questions possibly being "loaded" is nothing more than a dodge. If you want to show some maturity, then how about attempting to answer at least ONE of my questions?

LOL! This other member started making derisive comments at ME for no good reason (other than the fact that he disagrees with my viewpoints), and you expect me to apologize to him? That will be a cool day in hell.

 

Apparently, all you've done is hastily Googled the term and made an erroneous conclusion based on the example offered there. There's a little more to it than that, friend.
It's not about guilt, per se, but rather a loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. Such questions are used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.

This is clearly what you have done here. Even sunnyside, who is an anti-controller like yourself, has correctly pointed out your error on this.

 

No, they're considered assault rifles because they are selective fire weapons that fire an intermediate cartridge.



I like schooling Americans on guns.

 

Before you can "school" someone on a topic, you first have to comprehend the topic for yourself. An M16 used by the military is an assault weapon because it capable of burst fire. Civilian models of the M16 are only capable of semi-automatic firing. Civilian models are essentially entirely different guns (although they look the same as their military counterparts), and thus it is incorrect labling them as "assault weapons."

 

A burst fire only weapon isn't an assault rifle because it has to have selective fire.

The Germans came up with this when they made the Stg44.

 

The M-16, burst fire model, does have a selector switch. Safe, Semi, Burst.

Today it is called the M4. When I was in the Army the M-16 was Safe, Semi, Auto.

You need to go to school yourself.

 

Do you have trouble with the word 'only' by any chance?

 

Nothing "hastily" done here. From dictionary.com: Loaded question: A question heavy with meaning or emotional impact, as in "When he inquired after Helen's ex-husband, that was a loaded question." This term employs loaded in the sense of "charged with hidden implication." [Mid-1900s] From wikipedia: Loaded question: a question which contains a controversial assumption such as a presumption of guilt. It is you who is again misinterpreting. I have made no error.

Yes, this is exactly as I defined it. If you read my posts, you will see that I have explained that I made no "false or questionable presupposition."

This web site helps defend my explanation. Thank you.

I disagree with pro-gun people all the time. Two intelligent people rarely will agree on everything. I think that I have articulated my defenses on this position rather well. I understand sunnyside's comments, but they only hold true if you look at my questions in a vacuum (i.e. If you ignore the large paragraph that I had written above them, and only look at the question, then that is the only way they can be construed as "loaded questions." Please see my example regarding the question "Are you still beating your wife," to understand context.

 

Don't fall into the trap of looking at the questions out of context. They really do not fit the definition of a true "loaded question." For a loaded question to exist, there MUST be a presumption of guilt. I do no such thing. Instead, I establish 3 specific examples of deception commonly used by anti-gun organizations. Again, guilt is not presumed: It is clearly established with evidence. Once in the context of establishing these examples as my basis for argument, I then pose questions.

I indeed did use quotes in the OP. All of these examples were taken from either the websites of the Brady Campagin or the Million Mom March, in conjunction with listening to explanations of the presidents of these organizations (mainly Paul Helmke from the Brady Campaign) on youtube.

Exactly. All of this whining regarding whether or not the questions are "loaded" is nothing more than a diversion: Those that tend to agree with the viewpoints of the anti-gun organizations are unable to answer these legitimate questions, and instead resort to namecalling and diversionary tactics.

 

It M-16 isn't burst fire only. It has a selector switch for Safe, Semi, Burst.

A rifle capable of burst fire is an assault weapon. Nor does it have to fire an intermediate cartridge. The M-14 was capable of full-auto as well as semi, and it fired the 7.62 NATO cartridge.

I have personally fired the M-1, M-2 Carbine, M-14, M-16E2, M-60, M-79, and M1911A1. How about you?

 

You're STILL wrong. From your own Wiki source that you have erronously misinterpreted it from, it says: " a question which contains a controversial assumption such as a presumption of guilt". In other words, it's NOT 'a controversial assumption of guilt', but rather 'a controversial assumption such as (or, ..... 'for example') a presumption of guilt', get it?. Your reading comprehension appears to be lacking.