TexasCHLforum.com

AndyC wrote:Reductio ad absurdum is considered a logical fallacy for a good reason - and so is a strawman argument, which is something towards which you're veering. However, to answer you - for a first-timer buying a firearm, why ever not? We'd have a lot fewer unhappy buyers No, my point - which is apparently being ignored - is that while we SHOULD be able to carry without anyone's permission, we're putting ourselves in mortal and legal peril if we think that we can do so without getting at least a little legal and practical knowledge.

I have to tussle with myself on this issue because I WANT freedom to carry for everybody with no restrictions - but that's not the real world, and I wonder if any father or mother here would be happy to just slap a firearm into their son or daughter's hands - "There you go, son" - without nothing further said or done. Somehow I doubt it, but we'd be happy for others to carry like that?

Assuming we can't get Constitutional carry and still HAVE to pass an exam, etc, here's my ideal scenario - treat it like a driver's license exam. Take as little or as much training privately as you like (or zero, if you consider yourself skilled enough) - then take the written RANDOMIZED exam at any local gov't office. That way the time can be broken up however one likes or needs - yes, I can dream

Reductio ad absurdem is a valid logical argument as long as it sticks with the original premise and does not become a straw man. Mine stayed with your logical construct the entire time.

RadionalWiki wrote:Reductio ad absurdum is only valid when it builds on assertions which are actually present in the argument it is deconstructing, and not when it misrepresents them as a straw man.

Wikipedia Definition wrote:Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,[1][2] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. First appearing in classical Greek philosophy (the Latin term derives from the Greek ἡ εἰς ἀτοπον ἀπαγωγη or he eis atopon apagoge, "reduction to the impossible", for example in Aristotle's Prior Analytics),[1] this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate.

Reductio ad absurdem, done properly, is distinct from a straw man argument:

Wikipedia definition wrote:An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition.

The reason the firearm question is different is because it is a guaranteed Constitutional right. The government is not (well, it is, but it should not be) a nanny state, ensuring that the poor little free people can't do harm to themselves. We are free to arm. We are (supposed to be) free to bear those arms. We are free to reap the consequences of our decision to (or not to) train, equip, and prepare. Getting the legal and practical knowledge you mention is in the best interest of the gun owner, but should not be mandated by the government. It hopefully will NEVER be administered by the government.

We don't have to take a government-mandated class on the use of free speech. We don't have to take a government-mandated class before being secure in our possessions. We likewise don't need one to purchase, carry, and use firearms. The only construct provided for us to lose these rights is via due process of law.

Because we've started down this regrettable path, we need to continue to erode the restrictions at every possibility so that we might approach - even if we never arrive at - the proper Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

AndyC, let me play devil's advocate for a second.

Based on your proposition, the class should be done before the firearm sale, not before concealed carry licensing! How can we have armed people who don't know the laws or basic gun safety? Why not have a 10 hour class before buying your first gun? What's better than 10 hours of instruction? 20 hours! And 40 is twice as good as that. Shouldn't people be willing to take one week of their life to learn about guns before they can have one?

Let me retreat a little and make sure I don't sound like I'm mocking you. I'm just trying a little reductio ad absurdem to see if your point breaks down when it's taken to it's ultimate conclusion based on the original premise. I get squeamish thinking about quick-trigger cowboys with batman licenses reflecting poorly on all of us, but at the end of the day, the 10 hour requirement for class is as arbitrary as any other number.

I don't care if somebody knows how to shoot the gun they're about to carry. It's their responsibility to prepare to defend themselves. If we're going to do a class, then basic firearm safety and the applicable laws should be the extent of it. I with we would eliminate the shooting portion altogether. It doesn't demonstrate proficiency. It might give some people a false sense of confidence. Furthermore, it potentially limits access to CHLs for visually impaired or other disabled people who might not be able to use a firearm IN THAT SPECIFIC scenario, but who still deserve the right to defend themselves in SOME scenarios e.g. point blank range. They should be equipped with a knowledge of the applicable laws to know their limitations and the consequences of any actions they may take. Then, they, like all of us, should be held responsible for their actions.

FWIW, gun ownership (and carrying) is far different from a driver license because the latter is not a guaranteed Constitutional right. Unfortunately, one of the courts this week said that carrying can be restricted simply because it is currently being restricted. That is to say, we all subjected ourselves to the licensing requirements, so now we have to live under them.

Reducing the burden of the class is a good thing. It increases access to the CHL and will keep the instructors to the essentials, eliminating hours of fluff and war story anecdotes.

The next barrier to access for the CHL that needs to be addressed is the outlandish cost.