School is back in session and "WE" have been given three major
projects by our teachers due within the next two weeks. I use "WE" in
the maternal sense meaning my children have been given these
assignments but I will stay up late at night and help them.

	To get back in gear, I thought I would exercise my research
skills and practice my synthesizing.To all philosophers and Boolean
logicians, please have patience.

	The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not a topic
that often lends itself to logical debate. Emotion is more likely to
be the foundation of most discussions concerning the right to keep and
bear arms.

	Emotion is defined as any eruption of feelings that
involuntarily alters b consciousness. It comes from the Middle French
word, esmovoir, "to move the feelings."

	Logic is from the Greek word, logikos, meaning "of reason" and
refers to the premise of sound judgment.

	An argument is an address or commentary intended to convince
or persuade an audience by using a process of reasoning.

	Arguments use propositions, or statements, as their
basis. These assertions can be either true: a semi-automatic fires one
round for each pull of the trigger, or false: semi-automatic firearms
are only used by criminals. Often they are prefaced by "because",
"since" or "obviously".

	The second part of an argument is inference. Inference is an
additional premise derived from the original. So, semi-automatics are
easy to fire, or therefore, firearms have no acceptable use.

	The final stage of an argument is the conclusion. The
conclusion is another statement based on the previously asserted
propositions and inferences. Therefore, semi-automatics are a good
choice of firearm for someone looking for an easy gun to fire; or, We
conclude that semi-automatic firearms should be banned.

	There are two types of arguments, deductive and
inductive. Deductive is based on a logical process drawn from a set of
premises and contains no more information than if the premises were
taken collectively. Guns are used by criminals; this man uses a
firearm; therefore, this man must be a criminal.

	An inductive argument is one where the propositions provide
some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. But in an inductive
argument, the conclusion proposed contains more information than was
included in the premises. In this case, we might change our
conclusions to: Therefore semi-automatics are an excellent choice of
firearm for petite women; or, We conclude that all people who use
semi-automatics should be put in jail.

	One of the most interesting ideas about logical arguments is
that the truthfulness of the premises has nothing to do with the
truthfulness of the conclusions and the reverse is true. You can have
false assertions and a true conclusion, or true premises and an
erroneous conclusion.

	Another fascinating thing about arguments is that often they
are simply premises or conclusions. There is no tie between the
concepts.

	If you use a gun, you must either be a drug addict, gang
member or murderer. The preceding is a conditional statement. It does
not assert the premises that appear to be its conclusion.

	Causality is important in an argument. Causality is the end or
purpose for which a thing is done.

	I am going to argue that I have a right to keep and bear arms.

	I have a primary right to self defense because I have a right
to keep and bear arms.

	This is not an argument about my right to bear arms; it is a
comment about my right to self defense.

	I have a right to keep and bear arms because I have a primary
right to self defense is a logical argument.

	So is, I have a primary right to self defense, therefore I
have a right to keep and bear arms. The right to self defense is the
evidence of the truth of my statement that I have the right to keep
and bear arms.

	Inherent in logical arguments are errors, often called
fallacies. These are mistaken beliefs and erroneous reasoning that
allow an argument to appear correct while it is false.

	Argumentum ad baculum is an appeal to force. There is ample
proof that firearms cause violence. One in the home will only bring
death to the family.

	Argumentum ad hominum is an attack against the people making
the assertion. Guns are evil. Only criminals have guns.

	Argumentum ad ignorantiam is an argument from ignorance. There
is no need for private ownership of firearms. We have a national
guard.

	There is the argumentum ad misericordiam or the appeal to
mercy. There is no individual right to self protection. Criminals have
had deprived childhoods.

	Another popular method is the argumentum ad populum or the
appeal to the people. Individual ownership of firearms must be
banned. It is violence against women."

	The final style of argument used by those with less than
worthy arguments is what I term argumentum ad nauseum. Guns kill. Guns
cause suicides. Guns are more likely to injure the gun owner. No one
needs an assault weapon.

	Although these fallacies have been given Latin names, the
veracity of their usage by the gun grabbers can not be
questioned. When you read "arguments" for further restriction of the
private ownership of firearms, remember to look for them.

	While Sarah Brady uses emotion to present her arguments, Women
& Guns uses logic!  Personal Parting Shoots... Thanks to
alt.objectivism for the FAQ information. SMG, AHG, and AMG2 thanks for
your demonstrations of the last type of false argument. NOT!
M.M.D. not forgotten. jhvg@saf.org.