About a week ago this statement and image set fire to facebook via the status updates of many libertarian and conservative friends of mine. At first glance, it seems to be one of those "yes" moments for any strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
But I myself have a problem with rhetorical tools such as this, and it has nothing to do with personal or political sentiments towards the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution under the Bill of Rights. Rather, my qualms with this statement stem from the lack of logical analysis regarding the comparison he makes of the items involved. Lets break this down.
Chuck Woolery states that blaming assault weapons for killing someone is the same as blaming airplanes for the atrocious events of September 11th, 2001. Essentially, he is stating that just because an assault rifle was involved with the act of murdering someone, you can not blame the rifle itself, but rather the person who holds the rifle. He then compares this to airplanes, since the airplane itself was merely the tool used to commit the egregious tragedy of 9/11. Again, this makes some sense. But there are some issues we must discuss.
First, we must get down to the identity of both of these tools, airplanes and assault rifles, and we must reach a conclusion regarding their purpose. Basically, what utility were they intended for in our modern society.
Let's begin with airplanes. Specifically, let's discuss those he refers too, commercial airliners. These vehicles serve many roles. The most prominent is a means for transportation. They act as a way from people to get to point A and point B, either for personal or business related reasons. In a large market economy, fast modes of transportation such as airplanes and other ground based motor vehicles are necessities for supporting the economy's fundamental need for mobility, whether it is social or economic. They also serve as logistic tools for large industry. By transporting goods across the globe, they are a major part of any supply train.
Now let's discuss assault rifles. What utility where they intended for? In essence, they serve as an advanced technological means of self-defense, or, at times of conflict, weapon in order to complete whatever strategic mission may be at hand.
But assault rifles do have an economic role. Since industries provide such tools, people or organizations consume these goods for either one of their intended purposes. Moreover, they also serve a role for sporting. Many individuals travel back and forth to firing ranges using multiple different firearms simply to practice and improve their skills. Also, hunting is still a large activity in many states such as my own of Pennsylvania. All of these actions have economic impacts.
Now that we defined the original utility of these two items it becomes very clear that it is fallible to make such a comparison as the photo above states. Both situations and items are different. One must be wary of reading such rhetoric and consuming it for the intended political purpose no matter if it serves your cause or not. In this case the rhetoric ends up being a failed attempt at blurring the two situations with faulty semantic analysis.
When I originally posted a more succinct statement like this on one of the libertarian organizations Facebook pages, many were quick to attack me and merely focus on the economic benefits of such rifles. While I completely agree their statements are valid, they still ignored the intended point which I stated above. More so, economic arguments can only go so far in my opinion. You could virtually justify the legality of anything and everything when viewing things through an economic paradigm. I'm sure there are many things people would cringe at with the thought of it being legal, but would truthfully have an economic impact. Therefore, any issue impacting the greater society should come down to a much broader analysis which includes discourse regarding the social and ethical implications of said matter, not just an economic viewpoint.
Personally, I respect the 2nd amendment. I believe it is not only a Constitutional right, but a natural necessity in human civilization. While we have become extremely advanced sentient creatures, sociological and psychological factors produce situations where one may need to protect themselves or their family. While it is easy to state one can do this without an assault rifle, it all depends on what the aggressor in the situation has as well. If such advanced weapons such as firearms are banned, it is reasonable to assume that the aggressor may have better access to these tools than the innocent law abiding citizen who may be placed in such a situation. Therefore we must have a fair and open market to prevent any unsafe disadvantages, since these events are usually fueled by criminal activities and criminals have an easier way of accessing black markets where outlawed or illegal items could be obtained.
But I do believe there are many steps any society should take to ensure such powerful weapons don't fall in the hands of unstable individuals. Thorough and fair background checks must exist for these reasons. Furthermore, we must also ask ourselves what we want our economy to consist of. As the saying goes, it is either ,"guns or butter." But lets save that topic and the underlying issues I have with the military industrial complex and the economic distortions and inefficiencies associated with it for another day!
I hope you enjoyed reading this!
Best wishes,
Mark
But I myself have a problem with rhetorical tools such as this, and it has nothing to do with personal or political sentiments towards the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution under the Bill of Rights. Rather, my qualms with this statement stem from the lack of logical analysis regarding the comparison he makes of the items involved. Lets break this down.
Chuck Woolery states that blaming assault weapons for killing someone is the same as blaming airplanes for the atrocious events of September 11th, 2001. Essentially, he is stating that just because an assault rifle was involved with the act of murdering someone, you can not blame the rifle itself, but rather the person who holds the rifle. He then compares this to airplanes, since the airplane itself was merely the tool used to commit the egregious tragedy of 9/11. Again, this makes some sense. But there are some issues we must discuss.
First, we must get down to the identity of both of these tools, airplanes and assault rifles, and we must reach a conclusion regarding their purpose. Basically, what utility were they intended for in our modern society.
Let's begin with airplanes. Specifically, let's discuss those he refers too, commercial airliners. These vehicles serve many roles. The most prominent is a means for transportation. They act as a way from people to get to point A and point B, either for personal or business related reasons. In a large market economy, fast modes of transportation such as airplanes and other ground based motor vehicles are necessities for supporting the economy's fundamental need for mobility, whether it is social or economic. They also serve as logistic tools for large industry. By transporting goods across the globe, they are a major part of any supply train.
Now let's discuss assault rifles. What utility where they intended for? In essence, they serve as an advanced technological means of self-defense, or, at times of conflict, weapon in order to complete whatever strategic mission may be at hand.
But assault rifles do have an economic role. Since industries provide such tools, people or organizations consume these goods for either one of their intended purposes. Moreover, they also serve a role for sporting. Many individuals travel back and forth to firing ranges using multiple different firearms simply to practice and improve their skills. Also, hunting is still a large activity in many states such as my own of Pennsylvania. All of these actions have economic impacts.
Now that we defined the original utility of these two items it becomes very clear that it is fallible to make such a comparison as the photo above states. Both situations and items are different. One must be wary of reading such rhetoric and consuming it for the intended political purpose no matter if it serves your cause or not. In this case the rhetoric ends up being a failed attempt at blurring the two situations with faulty semantic analysis.
When I originally posted a more succinct statement like this on one of the libertarian organizations Facebook pages, many were quick to attack me and merely focus on the economic benefits of such rifles. While I completely agree their statements are valid, they still ignored the intended point which I stated above. More so, economic arguments can only go so far in my opinion. You could virtually justify the legality of anything and everything when viewing things through an economic paradigm. I'm sure there are many things people would cringe at with the thought of it being legal, but would truthfully have an economic impact. Therefore, any issue impacting the greater society should come down to a much broader analysis which includes discourse regarding the social and ethical implications of said matter, not just an economic viewpoint.
Personally, I respect the 2nd amendment. I believe it is not only a Constitutional right, but a natural necessity in human civilization. While we have become extremely advanced sentient creatures, sociological and psychological factors produce situations where one may need to protect themselves or their family. While it is easy to state one can do this without an assault rifle, it all depends on what the aggressor in the situation has as well. If such advanced weapons such as firearms are banned, it is reasonable to assume that the aggressor may have better access to these tools than the innocent law abiding citizen who may be placed in such a situation. Therefore we must have a fair and open market to prevent any unsafe disadvantages, since these events are usually fueled by criminal activities and criminals have an easier way of accessing black markets where outlawed or illegal items could be obtained.
But I do believe there are many steps any society should take to ensure such powerful weapons don't fall in the hands of unstable individuals. Thorough and fair background checks must exist for these reasons. Furthermore, we must also ask ourselves what we want our economy to consist of. As the saying goes, it is either ,"guns or butter." But lets save that topic and the underlying issues I have with the military industrial complex and the economic distortions and inefficiencies associated with it for another day!
I hope you enjoyed reading this!
Best wishes,
Mark
