Sunday, October 3, 2010

Exaggerating the Offense

A favorite tactic of the pro-gun crowd is to exaggerate the offense of gun control and argue against that exaggerated idea instead of the reality. Josh Blackman quoted a tweet from Professor Adam Winkler of UCLA.

“Reasonable gun control is one thing, this another. Chicago requires 1 hour on range for handgun permit but bars ranges.”
As pointed out by one of the commenters, this description is completely misleading, using the greatest of all pro-gun buzzwords, "bars." No, I take that back, "ban" is the number one buzzword, "bar" comes next.

The fact is, under this Chicago ordinance, gun ranges would not be allowed WITHIN CITY LIMITS. By simply saying Chicago "bars ranges," a distorted and false impression is given.  Anyone who could afford a gun could afford a trip to the suburbs which, I suppose, is where the gun ranges would be allowed.

What's your opinion?  Why do the so-called pro-rights advocates have such a need to exaggerate?  Why do they continually put words in the mouths of their opponents? Aren't our differences enough as they are?

Please leave a comment.

19 comments:

  1. You’ve completely lost me Mike. How is this an exaggeration? You said yourself; “The fact is, under this Chicago ordinance, gun ranges would not be allowed WITHIN CITY LIMITS”. Well, yeah- how is Chicago supposed to bar gun ranges outside of Chicago? Likewise Chicago’s handgun ban, wasn’t a ban because it didn’t ban them outside of Chicago?

    There is a great hypocrisy by Chicago in mandating training (because it is good), but also banning training/practice (because using guns is bad).
    MikeB: “Anyone who could afford a gun could afford a trip to the suburbs which, I suppose, is where the gun ranges would be allowed.”

    Not the point. If training/practice is good (which I would gather they can agree with since they mandate it), then requiring a trip outside of this city (very large city, mind you) will result in less practice after the 1 hour mandate. As you know, time is money. What exactly is the point of barring ranges? Is this something you agree with Mike?

    ReplyDelete
  2. So you are complaining that the pro-gun crowd exaggerates or lies about "bans" and you use a "ban" as an example? Let me help re-write this:

    The gunloons exaggerate about bans claiming that Chicago bans gun ranges when in truth Chicago bans gun ranges.

    Now its clear.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This has already been ably addressed by TS and FWM, but where's the "exaggeration" in calling Chicago's ban on gun ranges in Chicago . . . a ban on gun ranges in Chicago?

    You have said that it seems to you that "Republicans, righties, conservatives and pro-gun advocates" have a disproportionate tendency to accuse ideological opponents of lying (and is "exaggerating" with the intent to deceive not a form of lying?).

    Seems to me like a case of the pot calling the kettle . . . a liar.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In these discussions I find the words "ban" and "bar" to be exaggerations in almost all cases. They're buzzwords which you guys use to exaggerate the offense you're arguing against. When people say "gun banner" referring to gun control folks who don't want to eradicate all guns from the civilian population and preach for sensible gun laws, that's an exaggeration.

    In today's story, when Adam Winkler used the words "bars ranges" and Josh Blackman got on his high horse about it, they were doing the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:

    When people say "gun banner" referring to gun control folks who don't want to eradicate all guns from the civilian population . . .

    If someone murders one person, said someone is a murderer. He does not have to murder everyone in order to be considered a murderer. Similarly, if someone wants to ban one type of gun, or ban guns to one element of an otherwise free society, said someone is a "gun banner."

    Besides, referring to someone who wants to ban so-called "assault weapons" as a "so-called 'assault weapon' banner" would be awfully awkward, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  6. They're buzzwords which you guys use to exaggerate the offense you're arguing against.

    How is using the word "ban" or "bar" in this instance an exaggeration? Are you disagreeing with the fact that Chicago does not allow gun ranges at all? That's a ban! It's a perfectly truthful statement. Your argument makes zero sense.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Okay MikeB,

    In place of "ban", what would you call a ban on gun ranges?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, wait, I know this one!

    It's a "common sense restriction," right MikeB?

    ReplyDelete
  9. How much do you want to bet that the Chicago PD doesn't have to take a trip to the suburbs to use a gun range?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Frankly, it's a non-issue--most gun ranges are located in industrial zoned areas. No body is going to buy property in downtaown Chicago for a few gunloons. If you own property in downtown Chicago--you'll use it for a parking lot or office space.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jadefool:

    Frankly, it's a non-issue--most gun ranges are located in industrial zoned areas. No body is going to buy property in downtaown Chicago for a few gunloons [sic]. If you own property in downtown Chicago--you'll use it for a parking lot or office space.

    And yet Chicago's rulers have found such a law necessary anyway.

    Wonder why . . .

    ReplyDelete
  12. I will say one thing in defense of Chicago's decision to bar ranges--at least the freedom-hating petty tyrants are consistent. They also ban laser sights.

    Easy access to gun ranges is good for shooter proficiency, and laser sights can also help in that regard, at least in some situations.

    If the Chicago government is opposed to shooter proficiency, and in favor of "friendly fire" accidents, both rules make sense. No other explanation does.

    Happily, Benson v. City of Chicago challenges both of these abominations (and others), and I rather like its chances.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Question Mike and Jade; is being able to practice with guns a good thing in your minds, or a bad thing?

    ReplyDelete
  14. FWM asked, "In place of "ban", what would you call a ban on gun ranges?"

    In this case "within city limits" should have been included in every place where "ban ranges" or "bar ranges" was used.

    Generally, "ban" is often used when "restricted" or "limited" would be more accurate. "Prohibited" would also carry the same strength as "ban" without the rallying-cry pro-gun hysteria that "ban" has attached to it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:

    Generally, "ban" is often used when "restricted" or "limited" would be more accurate. "Prohibited" would also carry the same strength as "ban" without the rallying-cry pro-gun hysteria that "ban" has attached to it.

    Um . . . "prohibited" and "banned" are synonyms. Care to explain why one word should be off limits (banned, so to speak) while its synonym is perfectly acceptable, Mr. Language Person?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "In this case 'within city limits' should have been included in every place where 'ban ranges' or 'bar ranges' was used."

    MikeB,

    Isn't that a little redundant since it is presumed that the city of Chicago can only pass laws that apply "within the city limits"?

    Fine we'll apply this to every discussion:

    Today New Zealand passed a law that would ban all semi-automatic rifles in New Zealand". This law has no effect in Great Britain, The Congo, West Virginia or the planet Mercury so should not be considered a ban.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Prohibited" would also carry the same strength as "ban" without the rallying-cry pro-gun hysteria that "ban" has attached to it.

    Oh I see. What is your solution? Should we ban the word "ban"? This blog is theater of the absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes, ban the word "ban," and "draconian," while you're at it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:

    Yes, ban the word "ban," and "draconian," while you're at it.

    Trampling Constitutional rights is like eating potato chips, isn't it? You just can't stop at just one.

    ReplyDelete