Critical Thinking #2 - Waving the Bloody Flag

Another episode on logical fallacies.  Thanks for the recommends, they mean alot.

The next fallacy is “Waving the bloody flag”.

Waving the bloody flag is a term that has been traced back to the civil war when people would use bloody shirts of murdered slaves to incite the anger and wrath of the public.  Shakespeare writes Brutus waving the bloody toga of Ceaser.

Example : Gun control

The recent spate of horrific murders have the liberals decrying the evils of firearms.  A particularly insulting peice was Diane Sawyer’s “If I Only Had a Gun” that aired on ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=7312540) in the 20/20 program.

The assertion is that the increase in firearm proliferation is directly responsible for the increase in violence and removing/banning firearms will reduce firearm based crimes.  The fact is no, it will not reduce crime.

Facts : http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.’s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim.” (16c)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer’s life. (7)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

There are plenty of facts from that site, please take a look at the reference at the bottom of the page.  Yes the data is a tad bit dated, I admit that.  But they are facts and I believe they support themselves.

Waiving the Bloody Shirt has been used even when the incident is not even related to the issue at hand.

From the same site :

“I still think we ought to ban those bullets that are built only for one purpose, to pierce the bullet-proof vests that our police officers wear. I don’t see why we need those things out there. Let me tell you, we just started this program two years ago, as I said, when I signed the Crime Bill in 1994. Today, I met with the first — the family of the first one of the police officers hired under our Crime Bill, killed in the line of duty. I met here in Louisiana, in Lake Charles I met with that officer’s widow and two beautiful, beautiful young sons. And I thought to myself, you know, if people like these folks here are going to put their lives on the line for us, the least we can do is tell them if they put on a bullet-proof vest, it will protect them from being killed. That’s the least we can do for them.” (66) (67)

This was in reference to the death of Officer Jerome Harrison Seaberry.  Officer Seaberry was killed in a car crash. No guns or bullets were involved. (68) 

It’s not just this site, which, I admit, can be a little biased.


Conclusion :

The internet HAS to be the bane of the Liberal.  They can’t avoid facts when we are willing to think for ourselves and really think for ourselves.  Gun control isn’t going to magically end gun violence.  When we have no oppurtunity to defend ourselves, we’re simply targets.

Criminals will get firearms.  They will find ways.  We see this already.  In the final analysis, our government is simply turning us into targets out of their foolish stupid utopia vision.

God Bless,