Self Defense is My Right Not a Privilege

Good article,keep up the good work

Amen, Adam.

Goes for Eve, too.

Good work on the recent article. Common sense on this issue seems to escape a lot of people. People should look to the models of England and Australia and their ban on firearms with the drastic increase in violent crimes. Point is, bans have been tried, and proven NOT to work. You have my continued support. Thanks you for your effort.

I would really like you to explain how you can claim that you are creating an argument based on logic, when your writing is filled with the most basic logical fallacies that even my ASU freshman could identify:

1. Defending my life, and the lives of my wife and children, is a God given right, period.
--This is an Argument to the People and Appeal to False Authority. The images of your wife and children appeal to the values of your audience in order to sway their opinions, but in reality how often have you been called upon to use a gun to defend your wife and children? Using your argument, those people who do not have wives and children do not need guns. The appeal to false authority is the “God given right.” In this country, God does not give our rights to us. They are created by humans and voted on by the citizens of this country. According to the Bible, what does God have to do with rights, guns, or defending yourself for that matter? If you insist on using the authority of God, then you should probably back yourself up by stating the Bible verse where “God” decrees 1) that you have rights, and 2) that one of those rights is defending your family.

2. The second amendment protects this right. It is clear to me that if the state of Illinois protected that right, then maybe the recent shootings would have rendered less loss of life, and been less of a tragedy
--This is an Appeal to Ignorance. There is no way to argue against what “may” have happened if different legislation was in place. Is it not POSSIBLE that more people may have been killed if there were more guns?


3. There are those who argue against the bill, saying that all these gun toting people scare them, or that these occurrences do not happen frequently enough to change the laws.
--This is a Straw Man. This is a classic straw man, in fact. You have over simplified the opposing side’s argument in order to easily tear it down.

4. One passion filled argument I here (I believe you mean “hear”) from the left is; (You need to use a colon here—not a semicolon) they would feel less secure knowing that all those guns were around them.
-- This is a Straw Man. Is this really the argument? Who is “they?” Is there going be any discussion about the qualifications of the people who are carrying these guns on campuses? Is there any evidence to show that violence on college campuses was stopped by security guards carrying guns?

5. Now, what our friends on the left do not understand, is that those CCW permit holders tend to be more law abiding than average. I was speaking with a retired NY city police officer friend of mine, when he revealed to me that only 1/10th of 1% of CCW holders commit any type of crime.
n This is a Hasty Generalization, Faulty Analogy, Appeal to Ignorance, and a simple lack of evidence. You have made a claim based on evidence from one police officer. There is no way for your audience to verify this information. Are you comparing Phoenix with New York City? You need evidence for a statement like “tend to be more law abiding.”

6. There is no debate, (This is a comma splice—not a complete sentence) these shootings end the instant a law abiding citizen or peace officer confronts the terrorist with a firearm.
n I was going to address the breakdown in logic in this statement, but it is so nonsensical, that I can barely understand the meaning. It is just a very poorly written sentence. Are you saying that the way to stop terrorism is to have law-abiding citizens shoot terrorists on college campuses? In what way have guns been used to stop terrorism in this country?

7. I have heard it be said (“I have heard it be said?” This is not English.) that these tragedies happen so rarely that there is no need to change the current law. Simply put; (once again, you need a colon here—not a semicolon) since when, is just one life not worth defending?
--This is an Appeal to Ignorance, Straw Man, and a Non Sequitur. Your claim does not follow from your premise. Who have you heard say this? Once again, you are creating a weak argument so that you can destroy it, and in answer to your question, it would seem that one life is not worth defending when it is the life of an American slave, a Native American, a Darfurian citizen, a Rowandan citizen, an Iraqi citizen . . . the list goes on and on, doesn’t it? Actually, I think you just created a new fallacy here: When you claim that your own argument is actually your opponent’s. If you are using a gun, won’t you possibly be destroying “just one life?”

8. Fueled by passion, a lack of understanding, and a lack of clarity, those on the left wish to restrict firearms from the rest of us.
--This is an Appeal to the Person and a Straw Man. You are attacking the character of the arguer and not the argument, and you are over-simplifying the argument. What exactly do you mean by “a lack of understanding” and “a lack of clarity?”

9. This would leave only the criminals and the government with guns.
--This is a False Dilemma—This is not the only solution or the only outcome.
I believe that these are pretty serious breakdowns in logic, spelling, grammar, and basic sentence structure. I really hope that you take the time to address or at least acknowledge these issues. You are destroying your ethos by writing this way, and as a citizen of Arizona, I need a representative who represents, at the very least, my level of education, rhetorical ability, and intellectual development.