A key talking point of the NRA is that good guys with guns are the only way to stop bad guys with guns. In mathematical terms GGG > BGG. As part of this view, the NRA has advocated arming teachers and banning gun-free zones. Mike Pence, who is a solid supporter of the NRA, recently spoke at the NRA convention. Since Pence is the vice-president, it is no surprise that a gun-free zone was created around him. It is also no surprise that the NRA and Pence were mocked for this apparent hypocrisy.
On the face of it, this does show that Pence and the NRA are hypocrites: they advance the principle that the only way to stop bad guys with guns is for good guys to have guns and thus oppose gun free zones while, at the same time, accepting that there should be a gun-free zone around Pence. The NRA, of course, contends that they are just obeying the laws regarding the prohibition against firearms in areas where Secret Service protection is being provided. The easy and obvious reply is that if the NRA should simply obey these laws without protest or efforts to change them, then they should apply the same approach to other laws aimed at creating gun-free zones based on safety. Yet, the NRA actively opposes all other such laws. As such, they seem to be acting with utter hypocrisy and engaging in an inconsistent application of their avowed principles.
This line of reasoning is, obviously enough, analogous to the criticism of gun-control favoring liberals who act in ways contrary to their avowed principle. For example, Rosie O’Donnell claimed that people should not be allowed to own guns, yet was fine with having an armed bodyguard. These positions are obviously inconsistent and hypocritical—just like the position of Pence and the NRA, albeit for different reasons. That is, one group professes to oppose guns, except for their protection, the other opposes gun-free zones, except for their protection.
As with any charge of inconsistent application of a principle, the NRA’s proponents can argue that there are relevant differences between the situation involving Pence and other gun-free zones. One approach is to argue that the vice-president is simply more important than other people and is thus entitled to a special exemption to the principle. That is, the rest of us should run the risk of being around armed people, but the better folks should be protected from the armed riff-raff, such as NRA members. O’Donnell and her fellows can avail themselves of an analogous reply. This is, obviously enough, a problematic position.
A much better approach is to argue that it is a matter of probability: the odds of anyone trying to shoot any of the rest of us is very low, while the odds of someone trying to go after a celebrity or politician is much higher. As such, Pence (and other elites) should have his gun-free zone. This would also help the liberal anti-gun folks out as well—being unarmed is fine for the little people, but celebrities like O’Donnell and Pence deserve special exemptions for their protection.
In can be countered that this is still unfair to the rest of us. If Pence and other elites are entitled to gun-free zones for protection, the rest of us should have the same right. Likewise, if O’Donnell and other elites are entitled to the protection of guns, the rest of us should have the same right. These rights are, obviously enough, in conflict—if we have the right to be armed for our protection, then gun-free zones are out. If we have the right to gun-free zones, then the right to be armed is limited. Naturally, there could be compromises—areas that are free of guns and areas where people can go armed. However, there is still an obvious conflict here. Those who think guns make us safe would contend that gun-free zones make us unsafe. Those who think gun-free zones make us safe would contend that allowing people to have guns would make us unsafe.
As noted above, the exception for elites option that “solves” the problem: pro-gun Pence can have his gun-free zone for his safety, while insisting that the little people should rely on good guys with guns or be good guys with guns. O’Donnell can have an armed bodyguard while insisting that the little people go without guns. The rest of us are, of course, stuck with whatever laws the elites impose on us.
Mike, was there truly a gun-free zone around Pence, or just a zone where only the known good guys had guns?
So it wasn’t really a gun-free zone, was it? GGG > BGG still applied.
Interesting counter. As you said, there are (hopefully) vetted agents protecting the vice president and hence they are GGG and the zone is not free of guns. But, there are some points worth noting about this reply.
First, the same basic logic would apply to all so-called gun-free zones: police and other authorized gun carrying people can go into these zones (for example, police resource officers assigned to schools can carry). Hence, if there was no gun free zone around Pence, there are no gun free zones anywhere other than places that utterly ban guns no matter what.
Second, Pence still gets a benefit the rest of us are denied: the GGG around him are always vetted. The rest of us just have to hope that the folks around us are GGG and not BGG. He gets a very special gun-free yet gun containing zone. The NRA GGG would make excellent sense if we all got vetted guards; it is less appealing when you get the luck of the draw. But, of course, gun free zones also have their issues: they are, as you said, great if you have your own guards with guns. Less great if you are unarmed and hope everyone else is following the rules.
Ah, you’re making the same illogical mistake I always make, attempting to apply logic to a species which doesn’t operate by logic, except in purely technical matters.
Human beings don’t operate by referencing logic, they operate by referencing authority, primarily in the form of the group consensus. Ironically, this discarding of logic has it’s own fairly reasonable logic, because if one first assumes that many minds will come to a better conclusion than a single mind this eliminates the need for much thinking, liberating the mind for more important tasks such as, say, sex.
The NRA and liberals are self contradictory? This is like saying that human beings are human. Of course they’re self contradictory and illogical, that is what humans do. If we were rational, we wouldn’t have thousands of hair trigger nuclear weapons aimed down our own throats, a suicidal action we rarely find interesting enough to discuss.
Dear reader, imagine that you walked around all day everyday with a loaded gun in your mouth. Imagine it rarely occurred to you to discuss the loaded gun, because you considered a thousand other subjects more important and interesting. Wouldn’t the guys in white suits come and put you in a straight jacket?
That’s who we are folks. Not rational, but delusional.
Finally, if you read this far observe now how you will not be able to defeat the inconvenient reasoning above, so you will ignore it, and jump back in to the delusional pattern sanctioned by the group consensus.
Me too! This is my delusional pattern. Do you like it?
Logic does still apply to the illogical, they just ignore it.
You are right to make this general point; as I tell my students logic is far worse than fallacies and rhetoric when it comes to persuading people. But, if the objective is rational assessment, then logic is the best tool.
If I was trying to sway the many, I might put in a little logic to assuage my conscience, but I’d rely entirely on rhetoric to get the job done. If I lacked principles, or accepted a “ends justify the means” view, I’d craft fallacies to persuade people.
Generally speaking, is it logical to try to apply logic to the actions of human beings? Is that act itself logical?
I ask myself this all the time, conclude that it is not, and then continue doing it anyway, as I am here.
Is it logical for a person who themselves is not operating from logic to try to analyze others with logic?
For 3,000 years the great philosophers have been trying to logically analyze the human condition, and nobody really cares. What we care about is Baby Jesus if we are religious, and the fantasy that we know there is no Baby Jesus if we are not religious.
I’m not religious myself, but I have to ask, are the religious clerics are not the logical ones among us. They recognize that humans need a story to believe in, they create a compelling durable story, and thus serve billions of people over thousands of years.
Who reads philosophy books? A relative handful of people who prefer the fantasy story that they are rational.
As you may have noticed, I’m irrationally wound up on the subject of nuclear weapons presently. It’s not the existence of nuclear weapons that proves our irrationality so much as it is the complacent calmness with which we can ignore them. When an entire civilization, including all the philosophers, can do that for decades upon what basis do we label ourselves rational??
The allegation of inconsistent application of a principle doesn’t apply.
There is nothing inconsistent or hypocritical in saying “I think the rules should be different, but while the rules are what they are, I will behave in accordance with them.”
For example, it is a staple of leftist policy that taxes should be higher to fund more services. Are leftists hypocrites because they don’t make voluntary donations to the government to increase their tax contribution to what they believe it should be?
More amusingly, if someone believed that for ergonomic or perception/reaction reasons, it would be better for traffic rules to mandate driving on the left side of the road rather than the right, would they be inconsistent and hypocritical in not driving up their street on the wrong side of the road? 🙂
If Rosie O’Donnell’s position is “Private citizens should be prohibited from owning guns, but as long as they are allowed, I need some GGG protecting me”, that is perfectly consistent.
Yeah, Rosie’s not exactly a paragon of consistency. She can’t even keep her identity or addresses straight…
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/07/will-rosie-odonnell-be-held-to-same-standard-as-dinesh-dsouza-after-reportedly-exceeding-donation-limit.html
Interesting point.
On the one hand, you are right: in general a person can oppose Rule X, yet follow rule X and be consistent in their opposition. Rule of law that allows for opposition does require just this. However, there is a potential problem here: a person can clearly be a hypocrite if they go along with a rule they oppose. For example, think of someone who claimed to morally oppose slavery, but said he was consistent because the law allowed it.
I think that the NRA has the better case here: they could say, as I note in the piece, that they are just obeying the rule. They would really like to have guns there, but cannot do it legally. However, they can be called out for not attacking that gun free zone as they attack others. Also, Pence could have forgone secret service protection to act on his principles or Trump could have issued an executive order to allow guns there. As such, they could change the rule they profess to oppose (gun free zones) yet did not. That seems like hypocrisy on their part.
The anti-gun liberals are in a worse position: they are not just grudgingly following the rules they profess to oppose because it is the law, they are actively violating their position. For example, O’Donnell is against guns. She can have an armed bodyguard, but the law does not require this. To use an analogy, this is like the slave owner who says he hates slavery, but owns slaves because it was legal and he needs them to compete with the slave owners. He is still a hypocrite because he can act on his principle without breaking the rule: he does not have to own slaves and consistency does require actually acting on principles.
But, if someone said, “no one should have guns, but until that is the case, everyone should be allowed to have guns”, then they could build a consistent position, though it would still seem a bit problematic.
Going with the road example, one might say that they are a bit hypocritical-if they were truly devoted to their view and fought savagely for it all the time, then they could refuse to drive until the rules changed. But, they would be hypocritical if they pushed hard for changing it but not for their guy who wants to drive on the right while everyone else drives on the left. That would be hypocritical: We want all of you to drive on the left, but this special guy (who says he is all for left driving) wants to drive on the right. What can we do? Not complain, of course.
O’Donnell is against guns. She can have an armed bodyguard, but the law does not require this. To use an analogy, this is like the slave owner who says he hates slavery, but owns slaves because it was legal and he needs them to compete with the slave owners.
What does “against guns” mean? If it means “believes that having a gun is inherently immoral”, then her stance would be inconsistent.It it means “believes that it would be better public policy to ban private guns” then her stanc is not inconsistent.
I an not aware of anyone making the argument that having a gun is inherently immoral.
” If Pence and other elites are entitled to gun-free zones for protection, the rest of us should have the same right. Likewise, if O’Donnell and other elites are entitled to the protection of guns, the rest of us should have the same right. These rights are, obviously enough, in conflict—if we have the right to be armed for our protection, then gun-free zones are out. If we have the right to gun-free zones, then the right to be armed is limited.
You are using a colloquial or logical definition of “gun free zone”, taking it to mean “a zone which is completely free of firearms”. However, the term is defined specifically as a matter of law. For example, the “Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990” states that it is unlawful for an individual to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone – however there is a list of notable exceptions to this. The law does not apply to the possession of a firearm –
* by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone
* by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual,
*by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity
There are other exceptions, but the point is that in this discussion, it’s not what YOU say is a “gun free zone”, it’s what the LAW says. And that means that a law officer or private employee of a school can legally have a gun on the premises and it can still be regarded as a gun-free zone.
It’s also possible for there to be middle ground. In your post you say,
“Those who think guns make us safe would contend that gun-free zones make us unsafe. Those who think gun-free zones make us safe would contend that allowing people to have guns would make us unsafe.”, and you refer to this as an “obvious conflict”. I disagree. The two ideas are not absolute, nor are they mutually exclusive. I think that the relative safety in any situation is dependent on the situation, not the absolutes. For example, I think that a “gun free zone” as was the case with Pence, probably contributed heavily to safety and security – rank-and-file citizens who attended the speech were not allowed to bring guns in, but plenty of armed security was provided by the Secret Service and (perhaps) local law enforcement. Semantically, you are correct – this is not technically “gun free”, but it fits the letter and spirit of the law just fine.
To continue with my example, I think that declared “gun free zones” without the protection of law officers or other authorized armed personnel may contribute to more dangerous situations, but also may not.
Nor does Pence have an imaginary “perimeter” around him wherever he goes – he does not get his own personal “gun free zone” any more than the rest of us do. This was an event on a controversial topic with controversial people that bore an elevated risk and a decision was made.
And we do, in general, have the right to our own gun free zones. Businesses do this all the time. Chipotle, Levi Strauss, Starbucks, Target, and Trader Joe’s, for example, ask that people don’t bring firearms inside their locations but stop short of explicitly prohibiting them – but Disney World bans weapons of all kinds including toy guns – as does Costco, Ikea, California Pizza Kitchen, Whole Foods, AMC Theaters, and Waffle House.
I don’t know this for certain, but I’d be interested to learn if you or I, while contracting with a municipality or a private arena for a speech, a rally, or even an educational event, would be able to make it a part of our agreement that no guns be allowed inside. I would expect that we could – and like most of the rest of America, if our request were denied we could find another venue.
But these are event-based, not person-based. I’d challenge you to show me an instance of a dynamic “gun free zone” that follows anyone around. On the other hand, you and I are perfectly within our rights to apply for and obtain a concealed carry permit for our own weapons, or to hire armed bodyguards to travel with us – as do many popular and controversial people like Rosie O’Donnell or Michael Moore.
Lockheed-Martin bans butter knives. I’ll leave you to ponder the numerous angles for hypocrisy in that one.
The MK-7 Butter knife is the most lethal weapon known to humanity; so that is wise. Even North Korea won’t go beyond the MK-7.
My argument is that Armadillo XYZ is being irrational and contradictory for the following reasons A, B and C. Is my argument reason based? Is it logical to attempt to hold an armadillo to a standard of rationality?
In order for my argument to be sensible wouldn’t I first have to demonstrate that armadillos are creatures which operate by a process of reason and thus can be constructively challenged when they violate the rules of reason?
The NRA and Pence are not hypocrites if we look at them realistically instead of idealistically. They are pursuing their own self interest as they understand that interest, just as all creatures human and non-human do. They are being consistent in that pursuit, and are not in conflict with the rules of life in all it’s many forms.
The only people calling the NRA and Pence hypocrites are likely to be those pursuing their own self interest as they understand it. These interests can come in many forms, but whatever those interests are they represent the same process the NRA and Pence are engaged in.
As a certified nerd who is constantly pointing out inconsistencies in other people’s positions, to no effect whatsoever, it seems reasonable to question whether we logic nerds are just as illogical as anybody else. Our nerd brains were born to do logic calculations, and so that is what we do, and most of the time we will happily ignore the fact that performing logic calculations on other folks rarely has any affect on them at all.
Is the NRA going to change it’s positions because we can make a compelling argument that they are hypocrites? No, what’s going to happen instead is that if they notice us at all, our challenges will cause them to cling even more tightly to their point of view.
So, if we oppose that point of view, is it logical to challenge the NRA??