"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
"If immigration is oultawed, only outlaws will immigrate."
Is there any way that the first argument can be a good argument against immigration control, but the second is not a good argument against immigration control?
Most of the people who would defend the first argument would hate the second argument.
19 comments:
I'm not so sure most people who like the first argument would hate the second argument. First, a lot of the people who are against gun control are libertarians, and so don't think we should have any restrictions on immigration.
Second, almost no one I've ever heard of thinks that we should outlaw immigration. At most, people think we should restrict immigration to some degree.
I don't know anyone in politics today who wants to outlaw guns straightforwardly.
There are country quotas on immigration, which make it effectively illegal for many people to emigrate to America.
I take it that you mean ‘Is there any way that the first argument can be a good argument against gun control?’ not immigration control.
My answer is yes there is because the two arguments work in quite different ways. The first argument goes like this: Those who have guns often use those guns to commit violent crime or other forms of serious crime like burglary and mugging. If law-abiding people are not allowed to own guns they will not be able to defend themselves against such crime and the criminals will be able to do what they want.
The second argument obviously cannot mean that if only outlaws immigrate the native population will not be able to protect themselves by using immigration.
I suppose the argument could be that if only outlaws immigrate the native population will have to deal with a large number of people who do not mind breaking the law. But that would not be a good argument for two reasons.
Firstly, the lawbreaking immigrants would be there anyway, there would simply be a lot of immigrants who would not be lawbreakers. Secondly, most people would understand breaking a law because you desperately wanted a better life for yourself or your children. They would not think less of someone for doing that. Lawbreaking immigrants do not mean to harm anyone else. It is quite a different situation to that of the burglar who brings along a gun.
By the way, I am in favour of strict gun control and severe restrictions on immigration in my own country. I do not pretend to know much about the American situation.
So, what's trying to be proven here? That people who are in favor of high levels of legalized immigration are hypocrites for being against gun control?
I can't take this one too seriously, but maybe you just wanted to throw something out and see where it goes.
Actually Victor, if you're just throwing out ideas and impressions of things - I'm curious what you think of the 'Dominionism' rumblings I've heard attributed to some GOP presidential nominees.
Politics and religion intersecting that way seems like it'd be your kind of thing.
kbrowne said...
Firstly, the lawbreaking immigrants would be there anyway, there would simply be a lot of immigrants who would not be lawbreakers.
The rate of immigrations has a limit based on available jobs, as well. If more of the jobs go to the immagrants who upholds laws, there will be fewer reesources available to those who broke laws, and thus fewer immagrants who broke laws.
Lawbreaking immigrants do not mean to harm anyone else. It is quite a different situation to that of the burglar who brings along a gun.
This seems to be a sound objection to the argument. I agree it's not appropriate to compare people who want to work, and must commit a crime to do so, with people who want to commit crimes, and commit a crime to do so.
Victor, you wrote: "I don't know anyone in politics today who wants to outlaw guns straightforwardly."
Unfortunately, you are correct. I carried a rifle for Uncle Sam in the US Army, qualified "expert" in marksmanship, and am even a graduate of the NRA gun safety course with the certificate to prove it. Having thus demonstrated my bona fides, I personally would LOVE to see all guns banned outright in the USA, but then again, I'm not in politics (and never will be). I also know all too well that such a wish is 100% unobtainable in this country.
More's the pity.
(I now await the inevitable lunacy from Ilion in response.)
How about outlawing pornography, which - in this day and age - is something much worse than gun prevalence? At least tell me that Christian liberals like you and Prokop go against the leftist grain by wanting it outlawed.
Of course I already know where most atheistic liberals stand on this issue, so I don't care to ask them.
I think that liking or not liking of the first statement or the second statement depends mostly on whether you like the idea of more guns or more immigration, regardless of the outlawing of such.
Breaking my self-imposed rule against replying to "anonymous" (you do realize that it is very bad internet manners to post anonymously, don't you?), I am in favor of outlawing photographic pornography. Why that distinction? Because that variety involves victims, and is easily defined legally. I would be opposed to outlawing scripted or representational pornography (as much as it disgusts me), because then we are on that infamous "slippery slope" (under discussion on another thread on this website), where legitimate freedom of speech might be endangered. (I can imagine a partisan judge ruling that "liberal" literature was pornography, and therefore banning it.)
One suggestion perhaps is that slogans invariably make bad arguments.
"One suggestion perhaps is that slogans invariably make bad arguments."
What? Like, "Christ did it for you", or "WWJD?"
Those aren't "arguments".
Those who can't, teach, indeed.
Hmm...
Well, some slogans carry implied arguments, and the guns-and-outlaws slogan is one such.
Here is the argument sketched out (for those anonymous posters who neither do nor teach :-) )
1. Firearms can increase the power of individuals in protecting their interests.
2. Firearms can be obtained illegally or legally.
3. Criminals will obtain firearms illegally.
4. Lawful citizens will not have firearms if they are illegal to have or obtain.
5. If firearms are illegal, they will be held more by criminals than lawful citizens.
6. If criminals have firearms they will have power disproportionate to that of lawful citizens.
7. If criminals have more power compared to most citizens, crime will increase.
There are many flaws in this argument (I disagree with the last point since I think it is the power of the police versus that of criminals that is more important) but it is a real one.
Here is the argument sketched out (for those anonymous posters who neither do nor teach :-) )
You've sketched out an argument. Good for you, you get a lollipop. The "argument" is hardly "implied" by the slogan.
And no, what Linty quoted were not "arguments". LTFR.
"And no, what Linty quoted were not "arguments". "
Much like defining 'god', It depends on how you define 'argument'. See I can play that game too.
One thing for sure: If marriage were outlawed, only out-laws would have in-laws.
"There are many flaws in this argument (I disagree with the last point since I think it is the power of the police versus that of criminals that is more important) but it is a real one."
Because, after all, when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away!
Or, as recent events near Oslo have taught us, when seconds matter, the police are only hours away!
Moreover, even aside from the obvious fact that the police cannot be everywhere -- they almost never can prevent any specific crime, but at best can (sometimes) apprehend the criminal -- when the "liberals" controlling the judiciary and bureaucracy refuse to punish the few criminal who are caught, where is the "deterence"? Of what importance is "the police power" when everyone knows it is a shell game, played for political (and politically correct) ends?
Already, in Britain, the logically inescapable implications of mindset behind the drive for "gun control" are already on display and in force.
Today, in Britain, it is against the law to defend yourself at all.
Post a Comment