Gun Mania

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Gun Mania

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:51 pm

jman111 wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:After all, getting a concealed carry permit is no different than voting for a PTO president.


Henry, you must be an inspiration to those who aspire to going through life completely clueless.


Dangerousman wrote:He has been clueless regarding what I said about voting for a PTO president and buying a gun in a private sale (not getting a CC license like he tried to say).

So, you were trying to imply something about the validity of his statement with the expression of your opinion of him. That's textbook ad hominem, is it not?


jman... bone up on the difference between truth and validity. Then you'll know when I'm questioning one or the other. Here's a hint to get your started: valid and invalid refers to the form an argument takes. Validity only concerns itself with the form of the argument. Not the truth.

One can arrive at a false conclusion from both valid and invalid arguments. Or, a true conclusion.

The strongest form of argument is a valid argument (in form) that has true premises. If an argument has true premises, and is valid, then, and only then must the conclusion be true. We call a valid argument with true premises a "sound" argument. Right Henry?

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Gun Mania

Postby jman111 » Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:18 pm

Dman, bone up on the difference between a statement and an argument. (Condescension is fun!!!)

I wasn't speaking to the validity of any argument (i.e. logical validity). I was speaking to the validity of his statement, as is quite clear from my post. Synonyms of "valid" include "true", "credible", "accurate" and "legitimate". If you prefer I use the term "truth of his statement", so be it. Although, it could be argued that you were actually implicitly addressing the validity of his argument which led to his conclusive statement. But, I digress.

Now, given your vast, demonstrable knowledge of logical validity, do you still deny the use of ad hominem?

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Gun Mania

Postby jman111 » Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:23 pm

By the way, from wiki post on validity:
A statement can be called valid, i.e. logical truth, if it is true in all interpretations.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Gun Mania

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:19 pm

jman111 wrote:Dman, bone up on the difference between a statement and an argument. (Condescension is fun!!!)

I wasn't speaking to the validity of any argument (i.e. logical validity). I was speaking to the validity of his statement, as is quite clear from my post. Synonyms of "valid" include "true", "credible", "accurate" and "legitimate". If you prefer I use the term "truth of his statement", so be it. Although, it could be argued that you were actually implicitly addressing the validity of his argument which led to his conclusive statement. But, I digress.

Now, given your vast, demonstrable knowledge of logical validity, do you still deny the use of ad hominem?


In philosophy and logic "valid" is a precise technical term that is not synonymous with "true" "credible" and those other terms. As I pointed out to you, every sentence in a perfectly valid argument can be false. An example of that is in the Wiki article that you found:

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.


Both premises are false, as is the conclusion. However, if both premises were true, then the conclusion would necessarily true because the argument is logically valid. I'm glad you're taking my advice and reading up on it.

Yes I deny an ad hominen attack. I attacked the man himself. The soundness of his arguments are not determined, logically, from his flaws, or for that matter, from his good qualities. Pathologically determined perhaps, but not logically. One needs to be able to separate the two, because while the pathology might be interesting, the logical soundness is what is critical.

Hey, if I said "Governor Walker is a dishonest son of a bitch" are you going to tell me that am not allowed to continue to say "and he makes bad policies?" An ad hominen attack would be if I said "Walker makes bad policies" ... and you asked why.. and I replied "because he's a dishonest son of a bitch."

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Gun Mania

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:23 pm

jman111 wrote:By the way, from wiki post on validity:
A statement can be called valid, i.e. logical truth, if it is true in all interpretations.


You ought to have kept reading and follow the link to what they're talking about there: i.e., tautological statements (statements that are true by definition, e.g. "bachelors are unmarried" "all squares have 4 sides")

Endo Rockstar
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1280
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 11:16 pm
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: Gun Mania

Postby Endo Rockstar » Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:40 pm

I just like this quote and wanted to leave it here:

As a gun owner, you have to be cool-headed, moreso than the police ever have to be.

You do not start shit, act aggressively, flip the bird, roll your eyes, talk shit, or even raise your voice. To anyone. Ever.

A combat instructor (who happened to be Buddhist and a Marine) once said to me: "From now on, when dealing with (ed.) crazy / possibly violent people, you will lose every argument. You are always wrong. You are sorry for impinging on their day. You will apologize and apologize again. You will back the fuck down. You will put your tail between your legs. You will let them talk shit about your ladyfriend. You will let them call your mother a bitch and a whore and your dad a bastard. You have no ego. "

"You do all this because if you are the one to start a fight, by default that fight now has a gun in it, and if you start losing, you're going to pull it and kill him. And even if you don't go to jail because you could convince the jury that it was self-defense, you're going to have to live with the fact that you could have saved someone's life and yet you let your ego kill someone."

"You are not the police, so don't act like them. Though all of you [civilians] are better shots than the police, you do not have the training, the continuum of force policy, or a union plus free lawyers protecting you if you screw up."

-anonymous firearms instructor



-Dan Motor

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 23828
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Gun Mania

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:39 pm

Though all of you [civilians] are better shots than the police...

Is that a joke?

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 14100
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Gun Mania

Postby snoqueen » Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:00 pm

Not a joke so much as an illustration of the point of the guy's lecture.

From now on, when dealing with (ed.) crazy / possibly violent people, you will lose every argument. You are always wrong. You are sorry for impinging on their day. You will apologize and apologize again. You will back the fuck down. You will put your tail between your legs. You will let them talk shit about your ladyfriend. You will let them call your mother a bitch and a whore and your dad a bastard. You have no ego.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Gun Mania

Postby Dangerousman » Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:00 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Though all of you [civilians] are better shots than the police...

Is that a joke?


Not necessarily a joke at all. We can't tell what that instructor was referring to, but statistically, in defensive shootings civilians, (I mean non-law enforcement people, since technically police are also civilians) have a better percentage of their shots hitting the intended target than do the police. This has been widely known for years. From what I understand, the difference in the shots fired/perpetrator hit ratio between non-LEOs and LEOs has decreased somewhat over recent years, probably because the police are getting better training than they once had.

I do not attribute the better hit ratio by non-LEOs to superior marksmanship. There are both mediocre and very fine marksmen among non-LEO's, the police and the military. Membership in any of those groups does not necessarily indicate nor predict one's shooting abilities. I think that the hit/miss ratio difference is most likely to be attributable to a general difference in circumstances in which police have to fire guns versus when non-police fire. There may differences in the distances involved, and there are almost certainly difference in the intent. Police respond to uncertain or volatile situations, conduct searches and attempt to apprehend people. These are activities that non-LEOs seldom find necessary to perform, and usually are advised against doing. But police are duty-bound to perform these things, so when they end up shooting the circumstances are different often enough to show up statistically. I think the police are fairly well-trained overall, and that's a good thing considering what they might be called upon to do. But in general I think it is an error to make a lot of comparisons between police shooting and civilian shooting, or training, unless one is making a thoughtful comparison between the two. It's not apples and oranges, but it is at least oranges and grapefruit.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 23828
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Gun Mania

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:07 pm

I have a feeling that the average concealed carry permit holder couldn't outshoot the average cop. After all, no prior experience in firing a gun is needed to obtain a permit.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Gun Mania

Postby Dangerousman » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:42 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:I have a feeling that the average concealed carry permit holder couldn't outshoot the average cop. After all, no prior experience in firing a gun is needed to obtain a permit.


I'm assuming you're referring to the average Wisconsin concealed carry license holder, since some states do require shooting.

That might be true in a world where the "average permit holder" actually had no prior experience with a gun. But in the real world that is hardly the case. Based on the people I personally know with WI concealed carry licenses, or who have taken courses that I've taught, the average person obtaining a license has had a fair amount of prior experience. This includes combat veterans who individually probably have more real-world combat shooting experience than any randomly-chosen twelve cops have over the course of their entire careers collectively. It also includes a fair number of ex- or retired police officers who obtain a regular concealed carry license because it is less hassle for them than going through the hoops to get the "ex-cop" license under the federal H.R. 218 law.

I've yet to meet anyone wanting a CCL who has absolutely no prior experience with a gun. Not saying those people aren't out there, but I have yet to meet one-- and I probably meet and associate with a lot more people who want a CCL than you do. Last night a man and his daughter approached me in a store and told me they were interested in getting their licenses. A few minutes of conversation convinced me that both have done a lot of shooting. He has a .44 magnum and she has a .45 ACP. About an hour later a friend and colleague contacted me about a neighbor who works at a downtown Madison law firm who is seeking instruction to get her license because she's worried leaving work at night. I'll let you know her experience level when she contacts me. If she's never fired a gun, she'll be the first I've come across.

And those few who do have limited experience all wish to obtain more instruction and experience. I've had a couple tell me they don't intend to carry their guns until they've gained more experience with them. The idea that there are people hitting the streets with their new guns and licenses having never fired a gun is a fantasy of your creation. Just because it is theoretically possible, it's a huge and unsupported leap to suggest that's what actually is happening.

Oh, and by the way, I challenge anyone to find a state that has a shooting requirement that is particularly meaningful. From what I've seen, the requirement demonstrates that a person knows how to load a gun and pull the trigger. That's about it. When I shot to get my MN permit I could have loaded, fired, AND hit the paper with my eyes closed. Someone firing a gun for the very first time could probably do as well, if not better, with their eyes open.

The so-called shooting requirement is about as meaningful as putting gas into a car and turning the key and putting it into gear. That hardly demonstrates any meaningful level of skill driving the car. That's why including a "shooting requirement" is stupid. It's a waste of time. Why include it in the law if it's a meaningless waste of time? The real reason some states include a shooting requirement is to shut up people like you. I'm not saying that in a mean way, but it's true. It's political, and nothing more.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 23828
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Gun Mania

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:18 pm

So requiring a minimum proficiency in using firearms in order to get a concealed carry permit is "useless." Sure it is.

And as far as the secrecy over those permits, see the following:

Concealed carry permits should be open

The identification of holders of all sorts of licenses are open to the public, according to state law.

From professional licenses to dog licenses, people have a right to see who has them.

But when the law permitting concealed carry of weapons passed, it said the list of concealed carry permit holders was exempt from the state's Public Records Law.

In fact, law enforcement officers aren't even allowed to routinely access the list of people who have been granted concealed carry permits. At the very least, that's a serious threat to officers' safety.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Gun Mania

Postby Dangerousman » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:41 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:So requiring a minimum proficiency in using firearms in order to get a concealed carry permit is "useless." Sure it is.

And as far as the secrecy over those permits, see the following:

Concealed carry permits should be open

The identification of holders of all sorts of licenses are open to the public, according to state law.

From professional licenses to dog licenses, people have a right to see who has them.

But when the law permitting concealed carry of weapons passed, it said the list of concealed carry permit holders was exempt from the state's Public Records Law.

In fact, law enforcement officers aren't even allowed to routinely access the list of people who have been granted concealed carry permits. At the very least, that's a serious threat to officers' safety.



I pointed out it's usefulness: To shut up paranoid people like you.

It is completely useless as far as providing an assessment of someone's proficiency with a firearm. If the standards of qualification are so low that it becomes a mere formality what real use is there Henry?

And why should someone "qualify" with a firearm if they only intend to carry a stun gun or a knife using their CCL?

As far as making a the list of licensees a public record, what a crock. Have you ever heard of someone looking up dog licenses in order to break in and steal dogs? Or an stalker or jealous ex checking to see if a dog license has been issued to a woman because she might have a dog for protection? Or how would you like an anti-gun employer checking the list and then firing any employee found on the list?

The tired old "officer safety" mantra (the twin to "it's for the children") is even a bigger crock. Every cop will tell you that they always assume anyone with whom they come in contact may be armed. Having access to whether a person has a CCL does not tell them whether that person IS in fact armed. They assume everyone is, regardless of license. The only way to verify that some is armed is to either see it, or find it during a frisk.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 23828
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Gun Mania

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:46 pm

Dangerousman wrote:I pointed out it's usefulness: To shut up paranoid people like you.

The paranoid people are those who think they have to be armed to go out in public. That paranoia is also behind the measure that makes permit holders exempt from open public record laws.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Gun Mania

Postby Dangerousman » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:51 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:I pointed out it's usefulness: To shut up paranoid people like you.

The paranoid people are those who think they have to be armed to go out in public. That paranoia is also behind the measure that makes permit holders exempt from open public record laws.


It might be paranoia to go armed if criminals, stalkers, jealous ex-husbands, and criminally insane people were merely imaginary things. It would also be paranoia to maintain a police force under those circumstances.

But since some people live in the real world, it's hardly paranoia. Paranoia is what you exhibit, when you fear the law-abiding people as much as you fear the bad people.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest