Straw man arguments and gun control

[Gendo]

I've noticed that when it comes to the gun control debate; the straw man fallacy seems particularly common on all sides. I mean, straw man tends to be a very common fallacy in any discussion, but it seems especially bad on this subject. A few examples:

"Guns don't kill people" - No one said they do. The argument is that guns make it easier for people to kill people.

"No one needs a gun that can shoot 30 rounds without reloading" - Need has nothing to do with it. The argument is that you have the right to own things completely independent of your need for those things.

"I'm not going to let them come and take my guns" - While there are some people out there who talk about wanting to take guns away; any serious conversation dealing with actual policy proposals or talk from actual politicians is not saying we should be taking guns away from legal gun owners. It's about adding regulations and such that make it harder to get a gun.

"You don't care that children are getting murdered" - This is a bit of a different form than a classic straw man, but it's still misrepresenting the argument. The argument isn't "school shootings aren't that bad anyway". The argument is a different opinion on the best way to prevent/reduce shootings.

Anyway; just something I've noticed.



Related, one thing I've always found ironic is when the pro-gun side brings up automobiles. Usually in the context of "No one blames the car when someone dies in a car crash; so why do people blame the gun when people die from a mass shooting?" This entire line of argument sounds like something that should be getting used by the gun-control side of the debate, for 2 main reasons:

1) We DO blame the car in many ways... we investigate if something was wrong with the car, we recall faulty breaks, we do what we can to improve the safety of the car, etc.

2) We have all sorts of laws and regulations around car ownership and driving that are very similar to the types of regulations that gun-control advocates are asking for for guns... we require tests to prove your competence before getting a license, require you to register your car, etc.

If anything, the pro-gun side should be doing what they can to NOT let cars be brought into the discussion.

[OpiateOfTheMasses]

Good effort on the "being even handed" on the arguments front there!

I think the bottom line is that guns do make it easier to kill people (in the same way that you're right and cars make it easier to have traffic accidents) so it's perfectly reasonable to have controls in place making sure that only responsible/capable people have them.

[CashRules]

"You don't need an AR-15 to go duck hunting." Nobody said anything about need or hunting.

"We have the right to own guns so we can fight back if the U.S. government ever becomes tyrannical." We have goddamn Nazis in government and you are the assholes responsible for putting them there and you're also the assholes still supporting them. To you, "tyrannical government" is code for too many women and minorities holding elected office. Note - This one is not a strawman, it's an actual true statement but one that is made by people who misapply it so that it loses any real meaning.

The reality has still not changed. One of our two major political parties still wants to blame the guns and the other wants to say it's a mental health problem while making damn sure we don't put anymore tax money into mental health services. We have to keep spending that money to give soldiers guns so they can go kill people in other countries and come back home with mental health problems.

I saw somewhere that somebody (I think it was a Democratic politician) had suggested that rather than the ridiculous idea of banning AR-15s and other misnamed "assault weapons" we raise the minimum age for buying this class of weapon to 25. It's currently 18. I could support this. I'm sure my support would piss off a lot of the pro-gun crowd but I don't care as long as I get to piss off somebody. You can currently buy any rifle or shotgun at 18 but for handguns the minimum age is 21 so 25 seems reasonable for "assault weapons" but somebody seriously needs to come up with a better name for them. I've got it - "semi-automatic firearms made entirely of metal with detachable magazines and which were never a serious problem until politicians and the media kept running their mouths fifteen times a day about how deadly and dangerous these weapons are so it eventually had a psychological effect on the most mentally vulnerable people in society and became a self-fulfilling prophecy." But remember folks, semi-automatic firearms with non-detachable magazines and wood stocks are perfectly fine because they look like hunting guns even though HUNTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING CONVERSATION!

[Cassius Clay]

Guns should be cancelled.

Truth is the mass shooting problem is multi-faceted:

1)Guns
2)Men
3)Guns
4)Right-wingery
6)Mental illness?
7)It's guns
8)Whiteness?
9)Guns
10)America
11)Man-babies
12)Did I mention the guns?

In conclusion, a dangerous percentage of conservative, white, gun-fetishizing American males are entitled crybaby cunts incapable of the self-reflection and insight to seek professional help and we're all gonna fucking die because we lack the integrity and self-awareness to tackle the problem thoroughly.

[Raxivace]

Guns should be cancelled.

Truth is the mass shooting problem is multi-faceted:

1)Guns
2)Men
3)Guns
4)Right-wingery
6)Mental illness?
7)It's guns
8)Whiteness?
9)Guns
10)America
11)Man-babies
12)Did I mention the guns?

In conclusion, a dangerous percentage of conservative, white, gun-fetishizing American males are entitled crybaby cunts incapable of the self-reflection and insight to seek professional help and we're all gonna fucking die because we lack the integrity and self-awareness to tackle the problem thoroughly.

The only thing I would add to this list is the NRA seeming to spend a lot of money on "donations" for politicians.

Even a guy like Marco Rubio getting over $3 million from them is sheer insanity.

[OpiateOfTheMasses]

Guns should be cancelled.

Truth is the mass shooting problem is multi-faceted:

1)Guns
2)Men
3)Guns
4)Right-wingery
6)Mental illness?
7)It's guns
8)Whiteness?
9)Guns
10)America
11)Man-babies
12)Did I mention the guns?

In conclusion, a dangerous percentage of conservative, white, gun-fetishizing American males are entitled crybaby cunts incapable of the self-reflection and insight to seek professional help and we're all gonna fucking die because we lack the integrity and self-awareness to tackle the problem thoroughly.

Yeah - you'd think they'd be better spending the money on prostitutes and drugs if they've got that much of a hang up about the size of their cocks.

[Anakin McFly]

https://twitter.com/ffish/status/965571954282557449

(fwiw I think regulating anything from ignorance is wrong.)

[Boomer]

https://mobile.twitter.com/halalcoholis ... twterm%5E0

Granted, this is nothing more than an appeal to hypocrisy. But who says appeals to hypocrisy can't be hilarious and on-point?

[Gendo]

https://mobile.twitter.com/halalcoholis ... twterm%5E0

Granted, this is nothing more than an appeal to hypocrisy. But who says appeals to hypocrisy can't be hilarious and on-point?

I'm not agreeing with the republicans here, but those seem like consistent views to me. Both of them are saying "kids aren't old enough to make adult decisions or see adult things".

[Anakin McFly]

I think the hypocrisy stems instead from being more paranoid and concerned about kids seeing a gay couple (not even kissing or anything, just existing as a couple) than kids being slaughtered in mass murder.

[Gendo]

I think the hypocrisy stems instead from being more paranoid and concerned about kids seeing a gay couple (not even kissing or anything, just existing as a couple) than kids being slaughtered in mass murder.

The argument put forth wasn't about not caring about protecting kids from shootings though; it was about not thinking kids are mature enough to participate in the discussions.

[Anakin McFly]

Yep, I agree the way that particular post was worded didn't get the point across properly.

[CashRules]

Hey, nobody needs guns for self-defense because the cops will protect you. Yeah, if they're not cowards hiding outside while 14 teenagers and three adults are being murdered inside and over a dozen more people are being shot non-fatally. Also, this is totally the fault of gun rights organizations and not the fault of a Sheriff's Department that ignored what this murdering POS was up to for two years even while he was making specific threats about USING A GUN TO MURDER PEOPLE!!! I'm making a donation to the Pink Pistols.

[Cassius Clay]

I think the hypocrisy stems instead from being more paranoid and concerned about kids seeing a gay couple (not even kissing or anything, just existing as a couple) than kids being slaughtered in mass murder.

The argument put forth wasn't about not caring about protecting kids from shootings though; it was about not thinking kids are mature enough to participate in the discussions.

I think it's conveying how selective conservatives/authoritarians are with their "WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" hand-wringing. But when those same children want to voice their displeasure at being slaughtered, it's "who gives a fuck what the kids think?". I think we can all agree that there is something very wrong with that. And you don't even have to interpret it as necessarily pointing out a hypocrisy.

I mean, you could say it's hypocritical to claim to care about the welfare of children, while disregarding those kids voices when it comes to their safety. Or you could just say conservatives have shitty values(even if not inconsistent). Like children are to be seen/controlled...but not heard...and the tweet just points out the shittiness of those values.

Edit: Another way to put it is to say they may not necessarily be inconsistent/hypocritical...but their concern for children is definitely shallow(damn near empty).

[Boomer]

https://mobile.twitter.com/halalcoholis ... twterm%5E0

Granted, this is nothing more than an appeal to hypocrisy. But who says appeals to hypocrisy can't be hilarious and on-point?

I'm not agreeing with the republicans here, but those seem like consistent views to me. Both of them are saying "kids aren't old enough to make adult decisions or see adult things".

It is hypocritical to justify homophobia based on children's thoughts/opinions (especially when it is assumed and unvoiced by the children themselves), while at the same time dismissing children's thought/opinions when they are vehemently advocating for a policy.

Granted, I don't think the latter is necessarily wrong. We shouldn't base policy decisions on victims' and victims' families' opinions for the same reason that they shouldn't serve on the jury of the shooter. But the repubs being reasonableish on that latter stance doesn't make them right on the former, hence the hypocrisy.

[Gendo]

https://mobile.twitter.com/halalcoholis ... twterm%5E0

Granted, this is nothing more than an appeal to hypocrisy. But who says appeals to hypocrisy can't be hilarious and on-point?

I'm not agreeing with the republicans here, but those seem like consistent views to me. Both of them are saying "kids aren't old enough to make adult decisions or see adult things".

It is hypocritical to justify homophobia based on children's thoughts/opinions (especially when it is assumed and unvoiced by the children themselves), while at the same time dismissing children's thought/opinions when they are vehemently advocating for a policy.

But the homophobia is not based on children's thoughts/opinions.. quite the opposite. It's based on the notion that the children aren't old enough to form thoughts/opinions about it.

[Anakin McFly]

It is hypocritical to justify homophobia based on children's thoughts/opinions (especially when it is assumed and unvoiced by the children themselves), while at the same time dismissing children's thought/opinions when they are vehemently advocating for a policy.

I'm with Gendo in that I don't think this particular framing is hypocritical - it's comparing 1) what children should be protected from; and 2) what decisions children are allowed to make, which are two separate issues.

Whereas it would be hypocritical (or at least homophobic) if framed as: kids need to be protected from seeing gay people more than from seeing their classmates shot dead.

Or: kids are mature enough to speak in a political capacity against gay marriage but not mature enough to speak politically in favour of gun control.

[Monk]

In line with other people saying that people aren't caring about kids. I agree it's a straw man, but many do think their right to own guns is more important than preventing people (and kids) from being shot through stricter gun control measures. I think there was some politician who said something along these lines to some Sandy Hook parent(s).