The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Do you carry at home

**JohnKSa** · April 25, 2008, 09:04 PM

This is always an interesting topic.

The people against carrying at home typically have the following main points:

Assertion 1: People who carry at home are paranoid.
Assertion 2: It's pointless (or it's an over-reaction) because the chance of being attacked at home is small.
Assertion 3: It's pointless because even if you carry you might be unable to ward off an attack.

The first assertion (people who carry are paranoid) is an example of a logical fallacy called an ad hominem. Rather than discussing the benefits/disadvantages of the opposing premise, it seeks to dismiss the opposing argument by attempting to discredit those who espouse it. It is not only a logical fallacy, it is an offensive tactic and not one that lends itself to polite discussion for obvious reasons.

The second assertion is irrelevant. In spite of the fact that attacks are rare, they do happen. To imply that there's no need to prepare for rare occurrences ignores the fact that rare is not the same as never. Furthermore, the fact that an event is rare is no comfort for those unlucky enough to be affected. "They kicked in my door, raped my wife, beat up grampa, shot me and the kids will be in therapy for life--but hey, we don't mind because this hardly ever happens." RIGHT.

The final assertion is also irrelevant. One prepares with the understanding that not every event can be overcome with preparation. Having fire extinguishers in your home won't do you any good if you're away from home when the fire starts or if you can't get to one for some reason. So if we follow the "logic", we shouldn't bother to buy fire extinguishers because in some instances they will be useless.

Monitored alarms are pointless if the phone lines are cut--should we get rid of the alarm system because it won't work if the phones are out? The point is that having a gun very readily available increases one's chances of being able to effectively resist. Will everyone who carries a gun at home be able to prevail in every case? Clearly not, but that doesn't mean that the practice is useless, it just means that it's not universally effective. Not surprising since nothing is.

April 25, 2008, 09:04 PM	#106
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,994	This is always an interesting topic. The people against carrying at home typically have the following main points: Assertion 1: People who carry at home are paranoid. Assertion 2: It's pointless (or it's an over-reaction) because the chance of being attacked at home is small. Assertion 3: It's pointless because even if you carry you might be unable to ward off an attack. The first assertion (people who carry are paranoid) is an example of a logical fallacy called an ad hominem. Rather than discussing the benefits/disadvantages of the opposing premise, it seeks to dismiss the opposing argument by attempting to discredit those who espouse it. It is not only a logical fallacy, it is an offensive tactic and not one that lends itself to polite discussion for obvious reasons. The second assertion is irrelevant. In spite of the fact that attacks are rare, they do happen. To imply that there's no need to prepare for rare occurrences ignores the fact that rare is not the same as never. Furthermore, the fact that an event is rare is no comfort for those unlucky enough to be affected. "They kicked in my door, raped my wife, beat up grampa, shot me and the kids will be in therapy for life--but hey, we don't mind because this hardly ever happens." RIGHT. The final assertion is also irrelevant. One prepares with the understanding that not every event can be overcome with preparation. Having fire extinguishers in your home won't do you any good if you're away from home when the fire starts or if you can't get to one for some reason. So if we follow the "logic", we shouldn't bother to buy fire extinguishers because in some instances they will be useless. Monitored alarms are pointless if the phone lines are cut--should we get rid of the alarm system because it won't work if the phones are out? The point is that having a gun very readily available increases one's chances of being able to effectively resist. Will everyone who carries a gun at home be able to prevail in every case? Clearly not, but that doesn't mean that the practice is useless, it just means that it's not universally effective. Not surprising since nothing is. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?