An effective debate is not made up of erroneous talking points or faulty reasoning. It is well researched and is filled with documented and catalogued data. It is filled with reasonable counterbalances that measure the merit of a proposed action. This means that corporate “talking points”, better known as propaganda, which is filled with misinformation and skewed views created to sell and make a profit, does not make for good debate. Neither does erroneous statements about whatever else “can do the same thing”.
Meaningful debate takes the view that if something was not available, would you necessarily die without it? If the answer is no, then why are you defending the viewpoint you have? Let’s take a closer look at this.
opinion: I want to drink a cyanide solution. It is my right to do as I please, so I should do what I please. Right?
rebuttal: No. Just because you have a right to drink something does not make it right.
Talking points: Cyanide is a poison. drinking it would kill you. Just because doing what you want is your right, does not mean you are doing what is right.
possible arguments: I am suffering a terminal disease and want to end my suffering. I would rather kill myself than kill others. I am suicidal. But it is my right!
Depending on your ethics, you would find most of these as unacceptable…if not all. As it is illegal in many states to have an assisted suicide or commit an act of euthanasia, we see the medical suicide as against the law. And though the killing oneself rather than killing others is a noble stance, committing suicide is not really a sensible option and negates arguments 2 and 3. Finally, as I expressed with the rebuttal, argument #4 is literally a misinterpretation of what one’s right is or is not. just because it is a choice you can make does not make it a right choice.
I face this lack of real reasoning in the arguments of those who are extremist in their gun rights views. They claim that it is their right to own guns, no matter the cost. They do not see this as a problem and refuse to do research to see if their view is right or wrong. They make erroneous claims:
- We are at war at some levels, with our government.
Really? You see the people you elect as your enemy? Then why the fuck do you even vote? why are you even still in this country? Wouldn’t it make more sense to leave a country that you see yourself at war with?
2. If you do that, then you need to take them away from the police as well!
While I am all for the demilitarization of our police force, I also know that this is a bunch of BS meant to minimize your desire and make it look like a need for something you really do not need or really have any use for. No, we do not need a militarized police force. No, I don’t believe that the law enforcement needs military grade weapons or vehicles. But it is not relevant to the debate at hand.
3. Guns don’t kill, People do.
while I couldn’t agree more, the regulations or reforms we want have nothing to do with whether guns kill. They have everything to do with keeping guns out of the hands of those who kill. While we understand that no law is perfect, we know that making certain weapons illegal again will keep that gun out of the hands of the next person who attempts a mass school shooting.
4. But they are for home defense!
First of all, several independent tests have proven that this is a lie. The guns in question are less likely to be as accurate in such a scenario than-say-a handgun, which we have no interest in banning. In fact according to most of the tests done, these weapons were more likely to cause most damage and more unintended casualties than a hunting rifle or a hand gun.
5. But I can use it to hunt!
Again. Unless you want a strip of jerky instead of a whole deer, these guns are pretty much useless…even to a trophy hunter, who generally wants to have something for the taxidermist to stuff.
6. But it’s my right!
It is also your responsibility to serve your country in order to enjoy that “right”, no matter what a “rights” organization or a single SCOTUS says. The original intent of the Second Amendment, as discussed through the numerous papers included in The Federalist Papers, was to form a standing military. It was the provision that allowed for a permanent army, navy, marines, and the State militias (now under the title of state national guard). It did not give the individual an unfettered ability to buy and stockpile arms. In the era that the Amendment was written, a family had a maximum of three guns. Most only had one or two. These guns were used to protect the family and to hunt for food. It was also understood that owning put them at risk for being called upon to defend the new country as well. (number of guns was usually equal to number of adult males who were of age to hunt, defend, and be enlisted into the military. Number had nothing to do with an obsession or desire. There was no frivolous collecting. Most colonials/new Americans did not have the money to collect but often made their own guns if their previous one became too worn to operate correctly.)
7. But I want it!
I want a million dollars, but that ain’t going to happen. I want world peace, but that ain’t going to happen either. There are a lot of things I want, but it doesn’t mean that I am going to get them. We have a problem in this country with a misunderstanding of the differences between “wants” and “needs”. We often place wants where we should have our basic needs and relegate our needs to the back burner in our pursuit of things we don’t really need. We, in general, do not need assault or non assault automatic weapons. They were not originally designed for civilian use.
8. This is a mental health issue.
Yes, granted it is…but not just where the shooter is concerned. America, as a whole, is suffering from the mental illness called obsession. We have an obsession with profit that borders on mania. We have an obsession with guns that also borders on mania.We have an obsession with color, creed, places of origin, etc. that goes beyond the point of being a mania. If we are to address the lines that is at the root of these shootings, we need to address the illness that has permeated our society as a whole. Without doing so, we are still at an impasse.
Once we address our manic obsessions and rid ourselves of them, we can fully address the mental illness that causes the rage that fills those who are more apt to pull a mass shooting. Once we remove our own blindness to what is really at the root of it all, we cannot fully attempt to fix anything else. But first, we need to be able to sit down and debate with accurate and similar goals in mind. We must be willing to compromise, give up something, in order to attempt a solution. Otherwise, we are never going to be able to fully address any problem. We need to stop making excuses for our own selfishness and step back to view a bigger picture: we really don’t need anything except food, shelter, clothing, and safety. We cannot be safe if we do not come together and form a reasonable plan on how to make it safe.
When you refuse to give an inch on your “rights”, you refuse to negotiate a plan on how to make it safer. The you want to “debate” using erroneous statements and claims, you refuse to make it any safer. You are, quite simply, a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.