Gun advocates don't make a logical argument | Opinion
Joseph H. Crowley is a retired educator. He lives in Cranston.
Writer Ken Kossak ("A ban on assault weapons is really an assault on all firearms," Commentary, March 3) follows the logic of many gun advocates. If you take away any of our weapons, then you will take them all.
Interesting conclusion. But is it logical? The ad hominem logical fallacy states one should not suggest the argument of one’s opponent is invalid because there is something wrong with one’s opponent. Correct logic requires one to provide a cogent counter argument — the goal of this commentary.
Here is the technical definition of one logical fallacy. Denying the antecedent is a logical fallacy based on drawing an untrue conclusion from an if–then argument. If X is true, then Y must also be true.
More: RI Senate approves 'safe-storage' gun bill. What to know.
To suggest banning assault rifles will lead to an assault on all firearms, as Mr. Kossak suggests, is a classic example of denying the antecedent fallacy. Does passing gun laws result in an assault on all guns?
With reference to Mr. Kossak’s contention that a ban on assault rifles will result in all weapons being taken away, rapid fire weapons were addressed in the National Firearms Act of 1934. Banned were machine guns, short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled rifles. In the 1930s the issue was criminals. The law denied them their most potent weapons. In the 90 years since, no one has taken anyone’s weapons away except those addressed by the Firearms Act.
Today our issue is mass murderers. Assault rifles are designed to kill as many as possible in a short period of time. They are being used by those with mental health issues to quickly kill children and others. One does not need an AR-15 to hunt deer. Nor does one need an AR-15 to defend one’s home. The mentally ill do not need an AR-15 to become mass murderers. There is no reason for anyone other than the military to possess assault-type weapons.
Mr. Kossak went on to suggest while the Second Amendment was being drafted, our forefathers could have addressed assault weapons since, “there were some deadly weapons in 1791 which in those days could have been defined as ‘assault weapons’.” Really?
A musket took 30 seconds to reload and was not very accurate at 100 yards. A blunderbuss, a short-barreled gun, took 10 seconds to reload with a range of up to 50 yards. These were the 1791 “assault weapons.”
Prudent gun laws save lives. Gun advocates would have us believe guns are needed to protect ourselves and our homes. The more guns we own, the safer we are. Really?
More: Gun control advocates are again pushing for a RI 'assault weapon ban.' Now, the AFL-CIO is helping.
The highest gun death states are Mississippi, Louisiana, Wyoming, Missouri and Alabama, all with a 50% gun ownership rate. Rhode Island and Massachusetts have some of the lowest gun death rates with roughly 15% gun ownership. Logic would suggest one is far less likely to die from a gun if there are fewer, rather than more, guns.
Gun advocates are besieging our legislators in an effort to intimidate them into not passing gun laws that by all reasonable logic will protect lives while not interfering with the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It is the analysis of ideas and arguments using reason and rational thinking. Logical fallacies, such as those used by many gun advocates, are the antithesis of reason and rational thinking.
Let our legislators use logic to protect the people of Rhode Island rather than guns that have no logical defensive purpose.
This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: There is no reason for anyone other than the military to possess assault-type weapons.
