Logical Fallacies in the Gun Control Debates

Hello everyone!  A while back, I had been wondering about the possibility that our politicians hadn’t addressed every single aspect of the gun debate.  Maybe there might be some logical fallacies in their reasoning during the debate on gun control.  After looking through some of these misconceptions about the gun debate, I have found out that there actually are some used in today’s debates.

In an article written by Becket Adams, he unintentionally points out some examples of logical fallacies that are demonstrated in the gun debate today.  The first one I found is false cause, where presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other (“thou shall not commit logical fallacies”).  While our politicians say that applying stricter gun controls will curb school violence, it doesn’t mean that it will stop.  For example, an 18 year old used a simple knife to stab 4 people in Alaska on March of 2008.  Also, a bomb was set off at the Bath Consolidated School 38 kids and 5 others in 1927 (Adams).  This fallacy shows that while tighter security on guns may reduce violence, people will try to find other ways to hurt others. 

Another logical fallacy I found that Adams brings up is a composition/division.  The composition/division is when “assuming that what's true about one part of something has to be applied to all, or other parts, of it.” (“thou shall not commit logical fallacies”).  Even though we know that the proposed ban was just for assault rifles, it would still be possible for some school shooter to substitute a pistol for a rifle and could still have a devastating effect (Adams).  It applies to the gun debate because many Americans believed that when the ban on assault riffles was proposed, they automatically assumed that Obama planned on taking away their right to purchase any firearm.  If that were the case, the American Civil Liberties Union would make a huge deal regarding our second amendment rights being violated.  Even when I was enrolled in a class about pistols and marksmanship, the instructor pointed out how all the people at the gun range and shop were in a frenzy over nothing because the assault rifle ban would not pass. 

With these examples of logical fallacies shown, it’s quite clear that the problem is not firearms itself.  The answer to how we can lower the rates of school shootings is much more complex. 

Adams, Becket.  "Let’s Set The Record Straight: 5 Common Misconceptions About Guns & Mass Shootings."  The Blaze.  The Blaze Inc., 14 Jan. 2013.  Web.  26 Feb. 2014.

Meaden, Som, Jesse Richardson, Andy Smith.  "Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies."  Yourlogicalfallacyis.  N.p., 2014.  Web.  26 Feb. 2014.    

School Shooting Prevention methods of the late 1990’s Part 2- Postincident Debriefing

As important as it is to be prepared if any incident should occur, it is just as important to be prepared for the aftermath of any incident whether it be school shootings or something else.  Fortunately, FBI special agents Stephen Band and Joseph Harpold have developed preplanned actions should these events occur.  It is vital that if violence should occur at a school, there should be a massive effort on the administrative personnel and police agencies within the community.  As stated in the previous post, these ideas still sound useful in this day and age. 

In the event that someone who plans to commit school violence and mentions what they plan on doing, the school should have a “Scholastic Crime Stoppers Program” along with a way someone can report this anonymously (Band and Harpold).  Witnesses, especially students, would be more willing to report information regarding those who are affiliated with school shootings if they were to remain anonymous.  No kid in school wants to be labeled as a rat or a snitch and become ostracized by their peers.  Agents Band and Harpold believe having school resource officers are also important because they can “provide positive information quickly, weed out rumors, and develop intelligence regarding potential or planned acts of violence” (“School Violence Lessons Learned”).  While I never had any acts of violence or shootings at the schools I attended, there was always a school resource officer in the building.  Knowing that developed a sense of safety and security since the officer was there to help keep the peace. 

Another method vital to keeping schools safe would be for local police agencies to provide information on factors that cause someone to commit school violence.  Seminars should not be just for school faculty but also parents.  Some of these factors include but are not limited to: those who have engaged in violent activity in the past, access to items that could inflict pain upon anyone, and/or little to no abilities to safely manage stress (Band and Harpold).  The previous shootings I have given in my previous blog match very well with the examples I have listed.  Adam Lanza not only had access to his mother’s firearms, but also didn’t know how to manage his stress.  These examples also fit with the Columbine shooters because they had personal issues as well as availability to weapons.  The NVCC Woodbridge shooter also did not have a way to manage his stress. 

A final proposal for postincident debriefings special agents Band and Harpold have would be a joint-operation of the local police, school administrators, faculty and parents to think of ways to prevent further incidents from happening again (“School Violence Lessons Learned”).  The agents suggest that there should be “programs that denounce violence and encourage respect for life and education, along with initiatives that increase individual and parental responsibility and accountability” (Band and Harpold).  Reaching out to kids to let them know that there are ways to solve their problems other than through violence.  It also can teach them peaceful ways to resolve conflicts when they grow up and mature.

Band, Stephen, and Joseph Harpold.  “School Violence Lessons Learned.”  FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.  Sep. 1999: 9-16.  Print.

School Shooting Prevention methods of the late 1990’s Part 1-Preincident Preparation

Even before the NOVA Woodbridge campus or the Sandy Hook massacre, the FBI had began devising methods of preventing school shootings that already occured.  I had come across an issue of the FBI’s Law Enforcement Bulletin that was written in September of 1999 regarding school violence.  While I may not know if these methods are still used today, they seem to be efficient if they still are.  In this post, I will discuss the preincident preparation methods discussed in this article.

One of the first priorities schools need regarding preincident preparation would be to have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in and around the school area.  The MOU would give specific details for not only the local police but also organizations that respond to such events from when the incident starts to the end.  FBI special agents Stephen Band and Joseph Harpold mention that MOUs “should state what resources each participant will provide and identify the command structure” as well as “require ongoing liaison among all of the participants to enhance communication and maintain readiness” (“School Violence Lessons Learned”).  This would be useful today because in the event an incident at school can occur whether it’s a shooting or not, people tend to panic and can make the situation even more difficult to control.  With a plan already laid out, teachers and personnel will know what to do calmly and professionally. 

If these plans are to operate functionally, there has to be efficient communication with schools and police agencies.  That way, the police will be able to teach school employees how to react if a situation should occur.  MOUs also require the police to have access to human resources and technical support in order to work efficiently for the preliminary investigation, which takes a lengthy amount of time.  Another important component of MOUs as stated by agents Band and Harpold is that “the media may arrive at the scene before the police”, so there is a great importance of “who will issue press releases and how often that will occur” (“School Violence Lessons Learned”).  With the police not wanting false information given or rumors spreading, it is important that when updates of the situation are given, they should be given with one hundred percent confirmation.  That way, it doesn’t tarnish the reputation of the police, the school faculty, or someone who was mistakenly identified as the suspect.

In the case of critical incident responses, Band and Harpold write that these are necessary so that those who work at the school can “initiate a formal plan that clearly defines logistical considerations, communication needs, and victim/witness processing requirements” (“School Violence Lessons Learned”).  Establishing a command post to discuss logistical considerations allows further decisions to be made without any leaks to the public.  This allows the police to work without any complications.  Communication needs are indispensible not only to those who are investigating the crime scene, but also so that those who could offer information about anyone who was in the area can call a phone number in order to fit the puzzle pieces together.  The authors believe that victim/witness processing requirements are necessary so “victims and witnesses will know where to go for help” (Band and Harpold).  With these processing requirements, it keeps the preliminary investigation organized and allows the police to investigate the crime scene while trained workers help with interviewing witnesses.

To be continued.    

Band, Stephen, and Joseph Harpold.  “School Violence Lessons Learned.”  FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.  Sep. 1999: 9-16.  Print.

Potential Source

Its hard to believe that now is already the time to start thinking about finals.  A potential source of mine could be Joel Connelly blogs regarding guns and gun laws.  While I have just discovered him today, he seems to give very well detailed reports about what is going on not just within our government but also what this country's citizens goals are over the gun problem.  

Another interesting one would be the Gun Laws Blog, by Bryan L. Ciyou.  The blogs focus on individual states in the country, so it will allow me to have more insight on states that have more liberals or conservatives.  I hope these two will be invaluable to the final analysis paper.

Gun Shows

Hello and welcome to another blog post.  A commenter recommended me on last week's blog post that I should bring up the subject of gun shows, their popularity, and are they the way school shooters can obtain weapons?  After looking through some online articles regarding gun shows, I believe there should be some discussion on this topic.  For those of you who don't know, gun shops are places where people can view, buy, and sell guns, gun accessories, etc.  It is also an area where citizens can engage in "private transactions", meaning that people can purchase firearms there without going through the traditional methods of gun transactions (Brandus).

So why are gun shows so popular?  Reasons can range from an expression and enjoyment of their second amendment rights to checking out and admiring the designs of weapons, or to purchase them. You will need pockets stuffed with cash if you plan to purchase one, especially when a Browning shotgun costs anywhere from $16,500 to $19,000 (Brandus).  Another huge reason why gun shows are popular as well as a reason that almost shocks me is the private transaction factor.  At the gun show in near Dulles Airport in Fairfax County, VA, Paul Brandus states that "sellers aren't required to perform background checks if they sell their guns at their kitchen tables" ("What I learned at the gun show").  This is because of a "loophole" within the commerce clause, which states that interstate transactions can be monitored by the federal government (Brandus).  With these purchases being made in the state of Virginia, transactions can be made without a background check when gun stores give their guns at least several days when a customer buys one after filling out paper work and background information.  How do sellers at gun shows know they aren't handing over weapons to people who will commit school shootings?  What is also troublesome is that Brandus mentions that while a fair amount of venders were licensed, there were around 25 to 50 percent who were not licensed ("What I learned at the gun show").  It really makes me uncomfortable knowing that unlicensed sellers are out there at gun shows hoping to make some quick cash.  Also, its not just the possibly of arming school shooters that concerns me, but also home grown terrorists or those with severe mental problems are just a few examples.  




In regards to the question as to whether or not gun shows are the way school shooters can obtain weapons so that they can bypass a background investigation, the answer is very likely, but surprisingly not all have.  Adam Lanza, the Newton shooter, used weapons that were owned and lawfully bought by his mother.  The 2012 Aurora shooter, James Holmes, was able to procure several weapons that were lawfully bought despite being registered to the National Criminal Background Check.  A judge had declared Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho "mentally ill" and yet, when Cho purchased guns legally before the shooting, his name never came up during the time when he bought the weapons (Johns).  


While it is a shocking revelation that it is easy to buy and/or sell weapons at a gun show, we can't quite demand that it be taken away to prevent school shootings.  Personally, I believe gun shows are important expressions of our second amendment rights, but there should be a stricter sign up process that sellers should go through and buyers should follow the same process as buying a gun from a gun shop.

Brandus, Paul.  "What I Learned at the Gun Show."  The Week.  Felix Dennis, 25 Feb. 2013.  Web.  12 Feb. 2014.


Johns, Joe.  "Would background checks have stopped recent mass shootings? Probably not."  CNN.  Cable News Network, 10 Apr. 2013.  Web.  12 Feb. 2014.

Republican and NRA Views On Gun Control

Alright, here is what I believe are the pros and cons regarding the Republican Party's as well as the NRA's views on Gun Control.  I've decided to include these two separate groups in the same blog because they share similar beliefs.

The Republican party believes in America's 2nd amendment freedoms as well as its citizen's legal rights to practice self-defense.  They also believe Americans should not have to go through a long process in order to acquire ammunition in their house.  Another idea the Republicans share is the rejection of a nation-wide registration database for those who have legally purchased a firearm ("Republican Party on Gun Control").  I am in complete agreement with the Republicans that Americans should have the right to exercise self-defense.  Knowing that I don't have to feel helpless while waiting for armed police to show up if an intruder were to break into my house is a huge relief to me.  However, when someone is wanting to purchase large amounts of ammunition, that does set off some red flags.  Sure, that customer may be someone who likes to hunt game on hunting grounds or wants have ammunition stored to defend himself or herself, but how do we know that he/she isn't some mentally ill person who possibly wants to commit a shooting spree?  As to the rejection of a nation-wide registration database, I also am a bit unsure of the Republican's decision to reject this idea.  A federal-registration data base can really help out law enforcement personnel who are trying to solve a crime where guns were used, and a database like that can really make a difference.  

While the NRA has goals similar to that of the Republicans, the group also has some propositions that sound very effective.  NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre believes in the redesign of a "mental health system in this country that has completely and totally collapsed" (Whitney).  This is especially true when Craig Whitney states that the Navy Yard shooter displayed "clear signs of mental distress", expressing the importance of a "national database of these lunatics" ("Gun Control Advocates Should Heed NRA's Words").  Even with tighter gun controls, the Navy Yard shooter would still be able to obtain weapons he used because there was no information on a database that he was not mentally healthy.  It is nice to know that LaPierre is also a firm believer of applying "mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show" (Whitney).  While I may not know if sales at gun shows have as thorough background investigations as regular gun shops do, the same method for purchasing weapons from gun shops should be applied to gun shows so that criminals do not think that they can easily purchase a weapon there.  Craig Whitney also writes that some government officials are "beginning to take the issue of mental health care seriously" by supporting the Excellence in Mental Health Act, which would allow an "emergency 24-hour psychiatric" service ("Gun Control Advocates Should Heed NRA's Words").  If we were able to have congress approve this, many shootings would have been prevented and save the lives of many innocent people.  Its nice to know that the NRA is taking into account methods that could benefit both parties in congress as well as helping those who are experiencing hardship and feelings that could eventually drive them off the deep end and take out those frustrations on innocent people.

Hopefully, this goes to show that not one side is right or wrong, and that there must be a fine line between keeping Americans safe while allowing us to retain our freedoms.

"Republican Party on Gun Control."  On The Issues.  Jesse Gordon, 11 Oct. 2013.  Web.  5 Feb. 2014

"Gun Control Advocates Should Heed NRA's Words."  Milwaukee and Wisconsin Journal Sentinel.  2014 Journal Sentinel, Inc., 6 Oct. 2013.  Web.  5 Feb. 2014

Democrat's Views on Control

Hello fellow readers!

Ever since the Sandy Hook shooting, there has been a large amount of debate in Congress regarding whether or not America should have stricter gun controls.  No one could avoid the heated debate.  During the Spring semester of 2013, I was taking a Firearms and Marksmanship class at the community college I attend, and part of the class involved going to an actual firing range.  Every time I was there, not only would I see a large amount of people firing their pistols and shotguns at targets in the shooting range, but also quite a lot of people glancing at the weapons for sale.  My guess was that this possibly occurred because a lot of people thought Congress would try to impose tight restrictions on weapons to the point where no one would be able to posses a fire arm at all.  The professor for the class (who was a former DEA firearms instructor) said that people were just getting paranoid.  Today I will discuss the views of gun control for the two main political parties, starting with the democrats.

While the Democrats believe everyone has the right to bear arms, they also believe there should be stricter background checks for purchasing firearms, prevent the sale of assault rifles, and cancel the gun show all in all ("Democratic Party on Gun Control").  To me, this is a complicated issue.  I do believe that there should be stricter background checks.  With tighter background investigations, it will allow sellers to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of those who wish to seek harm upon others.  Background investigations are also a good way for tracking down those accused of murder.  For example, if the police arrested someone for murder and the firearm was not registered to the murderer, forensics would be able to trace the serial number on the weapon to the person who had illegally sold the weapon.

Regarding the prevention of assault rifles or gun shows is something that doesn't make much sense.  If a group of thieves armed with illegally purchased assault rifles were approaching some one's house (for the sake of argument, say this home owner is 100 percent mentally healthy), and all the home owner had was a pistol and few magazines, he/she would not stand a chance of defending their property due to the proposed ban on rifles and the limited amount of magazines a customer can purchase.  If the home owner was allowed to carry a rifle with no limitations on the amount of magazines available for purchase, then he/she would be able to defend himself/herself until the police arrive.

This post was not intended to discredit the Democrats in any way, just to show the pros and cons of their proposal on gun control laws.  Next, I will discuss the Republican's views on this issue.

"Democratic Party on Gun Control."  On The Issues.  Jesse Gordon, 10 Oct. 2013.  Web.  5 Feb. 2014.