Gun control gets cut down by Occam’s Razor

William of Ockham, born in the village of Ockham in Surrey (England) about 1285, was the most influential philosopher of the 14th century and a controversial theologian.

He entered the Franciscan order at an early age and took the traditional course of theological studies at Oxford. Strong opposition to his opinions from members of the theological faculty prevented him from obtaining his Master's degree. His teaching had also aroused the attention of Pope John XXII, who summoned him to the papal court in Avignion (France) in 1324.

The charges against him were presented by Jogh Lutterell, the former chancellor of the university of Oxford. Ockham was never condemned, but in 1327, while residing in Avignion, he became involved in the dispute over apostolic poverty. When this controversy reached a critical stage in 1328, and the Pope was about to issue a condemnation of the position held by the Franciscans, Ockham and two other Franciscans fled from Avignion to seek the protection of Emperor Louis IV, the Bavarian.

They followed the emperor to Munich (Germany) in 1330, where Ockham wrote fervently against the papacy in a series of treatises on papal power and civil sovereignty. The medieval rule of parsimony, or principle of economy, frequently used by Ockham came to be known as Ockham's razor. The rule, which said that plurality should not be assumed without necessity (or, in modern English, keep it simple, stupid), was used to eliminate many pseudo-explanatory entities.

It is believed that he died in a convent in Munich in 1349, a victim of the Black Death. His name, spelled Occam, lives on in the names of streets and restaurants in Munich ... and in the brave new world of high-performance safety-critical parallel computing.

Occam's razor, or the law of economy or law of parsimony, is a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.

Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time: "We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed."

Gun control gets cut down by Occam’s Razor

From the Gun Owners of America

29 January 2013

In the current debate concerning guns in America, I am always astounded by the twisting of facts, logic and reason that the gun control zealots put forth in order to defend their case. By all sense and logic, gun control cannot be viewed as anything other than a means to oppress a free people and to disarm the law abiding.

When looking at the pro-rights argument against the pro-control argument one needs to cut through the hyperbole and sensationalism with Occam’s razor.

Occam’s razor, for those of you who don’t know, is a term used in logic and problem solving. Plainly put, Occam’s razor is the process in which, when you have two competing theories, the one that makes the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct one. By using the “razor” to cut away the most assumptions you are left with the correct answer.

To apply this to the gun debate, I argue that gun control, when cut to ribbons by the razor cannot stand.

The argument for the 2nd Amendment.

• An armed people are a free people

That’s pretty much the only assumption that needs to be taken into consideration for the 2nd Amendment. Freedom does not guarantee safety, it does not ensure absolute happiness, it only assumes that if people are armed they will be free so long as they remain so.

The argument for gun control requires a lot more assumptions to be made.

• The 2nd Amendment is about hunting
• The founding fathers didn't know what weapons would be available in the future and wouldn’t have written the 2nd Amendment if they had
• Gun control will stop criminals from getting guns
• The government will never turn on its people
• The police are enough to keep you safe
• Criminals will follow gun laws
• Shall not be infringed doesn’t mean that the 2nd Amendment can’t be infringed
• Gun control only fails because we don’t have enough of it
• Only the government needs guns, law abiding people don’t
• Armed citizenry couldn’t stop tyranny

Those are just 10 assumptions that I have heard the gun control zealots use that come to mind. I’m sure many of those reading this have heard even more.

The long and short of it is this, you have to make a LOT of assumptions in order to get on board with gun control while the 2nd Amendment only requires you to make 1 assumption. And that assumption just seems so rational and has been proven in history that it boggles my mind that people still choose to deny it.

So the next time you find yourself in a war of words with some “enlightened” gun control advocate, don’t forget to bring your razor.