Let me state up front that I’m a moderate on this issue – I don’t own guns, but I also don’t believe they should be entirely banned. Also, I’m not making any claim to know exactly what the correct answer is in this debate.
The real problem with discussing the issue of gun control is out-of-control rhetoric. Any time the topic of gun control comes up, you get straw-man attacks on these two extremes. Yes, there are probably a few people who hold these extreme opinions, but I believe that it’s likely not really very many. When we focus on those extremes, though, it makes it nearly impossible to have any kind of actual discussion. Let me explain.
I recently saw the following post on Facebook:
The problem with memes like these is that they completely miss the point of the gun control debate. No one, Obama included, is saying that all guns should be eliminated and that they cannot ever be used in ways that actually increase protection. But someone thought they were being clever by creating this image and now it’s making the rounds and helping to prevent any actual discussion from happening.
Think about alcohol for a moment. I’m a long time member of Mississippi’s Raise Your Pints, an organization that has worked to raise the legal alcohol limit for beer and to legalize home brewing. In that sense, I’m very pro-alcohol. However, I also believe it’s a good idea to have laws, for example, that prohibit drinking and driving. The image above, would be similar to taking a picture of me having a beer with dinner at home, drawing a red arrow labeling the beer, and then giving me a word bubble that says, “Drinking and driving makes us less safe.” Does that make sense? No! It misses the point.
In logic, we call this a straw man attack. Essentially, what it means is you prop up an argument that no one is actually making and refute that argument as if you’re addressing the actual point. In reality, you’ve not even addressed the arguments that are being made! Why should you care? Because you’re not convincing anyone of anything. Remember, I’m a moderate, and I’m thinking that maybe there should be some additional gun control, but I certainly don’t think all guns should be banned. The only thing the image above does is make me think those who are against gun control are not very intelligent. Is that really the message you’re trying to communicate?
Can we please, as a country, stop being distracted by these straw men arguments and actually start discussing things that matter?
Are there things we might all come close to agreeing on? Check out the info-graphic below and let me know what you think!
So you want to begin the debate by telling those that are against more ‘gun control” that they are not intelligent. I thought the picture was good because I have never heard anyone on the side of “gun control” talk about the need for more guns in any way. It is always less guns with more restrictions aimed at law abiding gun owners.Crazy people could care less how many new gun laws are passed and criminals want more laws because fewer guns help them.
I don’t own guns for killing. I own guns to protect myself and family if necessary and I hope it is never necessary.
I’m not intelligent enough to talk or write my way out of a dangerous situation so I own a gun. It is okay with me if you don’t own one.
Now why do you use alcohol, which in my life has led to nothing but pain and suffering, for your comparison to guns?
If alcohol were to disappear from the face of the earth this minute would there be more harm or benefit?
In my life guns only protect me. In my life alcohol ruined my childhood because my father drank and then I drank. Should I blame me or the alcohol? If you say the alcohol argument over. If you say me argument over because guns or alcohol can’t do anything without me
It is impossible to argue any point when the one I’m arguing with gets to judge my intelligence and if I don’t measure up I lose regardless of facts .
I hope I haven’t proven your point.
Be safe and have a happy new year.
First, thank you for the comment and adding to this discussion. You’ve raised some issues that I hope I can clarify.
I was not trying to say, by any means, that those who are against more gun control are actually less intelligent. The point I was trying to make, is that generally the arguments I see against increased gun control aren’t very good if they’re aimed at people who are on the fence or already support gun control measures. The rhetoric being used probably makes complete sense to those who are already within that perspective, but not to those outside that point of view. That’s why I was asked the rhetorical question if that was what was trying to be communicated. I understand that clearly it’s not, and there is a real point to be made, as you’re doing here.
As to your point about crazy people, the hope of those supporting increased gun control is that we as a society could find a way creating laws that would do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of those who are crazy. One of the reasons I’m on the fence is because I haven’t been convinced that this is possible. In an ideal world, the only people who would have access to guns are the ones who would use them ethically. The question is: can laws move us any closer to that ideal? I think that’s what really needs to be debated and discussed and thought through.
I’m not sure why you say the argument is over if we place blame on the individual in the misuse of something. Just like with guns, alcohol has the possibility to be used in a constructive or destructive manner. Just because some people haven’t used them constructively isn’t an argument for eliminating all instances of them even for people who have used them responsibly, whether we’re talking about guns or alcohol. Which is exactly the reason I’m not supporting an attempt to eliminate all guns from the world.
Jeff, at no point did the he say that people against more gun control are less intelligent.
The post is just a reminder that in all discussions we should stick to the heart of the matter being addressed and avoid winding garden paths and straw man arguments.
For example, my father believes that “gun control” is a phrase equivalent to “they’re taking my guns away.” He makes that equivalence because slippery slope arguments have convinced him that any attempt to regulate who can buy a weapon will result in the loss of his own. But guess what? Slippery slope arguments, like straw men, are only used to distract people from the heart of the issue.
Going back to JJ’s illustrative photo: The armed men in the photo are not carrying automatic rifles. They have been subject to background checks and psychological screenings and extensive trainings. They are, to that extent, poster children for the positive effects of gun control. (On the flip side, should all citizens be subject to that? No, for the same reasons that they shouldn’t pay poll taxes. My point is just that the photo seems to make an obvious point, but that when you look at it according to the heart of the matter–that “outlawing guns” isn’t ever the plan, and that Secret Service agents are a (not “the”) model for gun owners–then the intention of the photo falls apart for what it is: a rallying cry to raise passion for one end of a spectrum, rather than a step toward a practical solution that protects the most people.
(Side note: I’m leaving the discussion of alcohol to JJ, but it seemed clear to me that he was using it as an illustrative point BECAUSE of the parallel you suggested: alcohol, like guns, are harmful when used by a certain class of people, and their access shouldn’t be available to just anyone. The restrictions should be in place, but they should be common sense and backed by data not funny memes.)
Oops, when I started typing (on my phone) JJ hadn’t replied yet. I apologize for repetitions or contradictions. (Or muddying or waters in any other way.)
Thanks Sean! You have a way of saying things clearly and simply!
Thanks for the reasonable conversation.
Argument over means which ever answer you chose it doesn’t matter because the foundation of the argument or the premise is misplaced. More gun control will not solve the problem you are trying to solve.
Let me use your alcohol premise. How about a waiting period before you can buy alcohol? How about a back ground check? An ID only isn’t enough because….well you know. Doesn’t make a lot of sense does it?
Believe me I wish I had the answer to both alcohol and gun violence. However, it is my belief that more of the same (laws) expecting different results is ……well I’m sure you get my point.
Glad to have this conversation! And I quite agree with you, insofar as I think that more of the same types of laws won’t work. But the point I’m trying to make with this entry is that we need to expand the conversation. Are there other things we can try? Maybe some control laws would make sense if they were part of a bigger picture effort? Again, I’m not positive – but my hope is that we can start avoiding poor rhetoric and having better conversations… like this one!
This should not become a political issue. Unfortunately that is the only way anything gets done in the USA. We have to admit it is still the best country ever. A little cowboy logic if I may. Some people are wolves, some are sheep, and a few are sheepdogs. No disrespect to the sheep just an analogy. Wolves eat sheep because the sheep have no natural defense against a wolf except for the sheepdog. Sheepdogs will protect the sheep with their lives. That’s what sheepdogs do. Some people in our society are sheepdogs and their right to bear arms gives them that ability. We will most likely never live in this world without wolves and there will always be people that need help. It would be nice to rely on police for protection but there aren’t enough. They get there, usually, after the damage has been done. More sheepdogs benefit society.
The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees every American the right to bear arms. Has any law ever been so ambiguous? What are arms? What does it mean to bear them? At least with the first amendment we know exactly where we stand: Freedom of speech. It couldn’t be any clearer. But, the right to bear arms leaves the second amendment open to different interpretations. We need gun permits to carry a concealed weapon. Do we need knife permits? No. Yet both can, and often do, cause death. We can own a gun, or a rifle, or a sub-machine gun, or a machete, and dozens of other tools to kill, even our own bare hands. So, gun control is a debate in our country that makes no sense unless you broaden the ban or acceptance to include all instruments of death.’..
Look out for our own internet site as well
http://www.homeimprovementstuffs.com
Do you really think the 1st Amendement is that much clearer? “Speech” is at least as ambiguous as “arms” and there have been all kinds of discussions about limits on this, as discussed in the post.
Why do we have to broaden the ban to all possible instruments of death when other countries have had so much success by only focusing on guns?