The first was "saying guns kill people is like saying the pencil failed my test." It seems like pro-gun arguments center around the notion of personal responsibility. Where this argument breaks down for me is that in the pencil test scenario, that bad outcome is affecting the user and only the user. In the gun argument, another person is being killed. So, yes, when the outcomes affect you alone, then personal responsibility is more important than tools used. But when you start affecting other people, aka killing and injuring them, then you cede personal responsibility for the collective safety of others.
The other argument was basically, if someone murdered a love one with a baseball bat, would you feel any different than if it was with a gun. This one is pretty dumb because it centers entirely on the feelings of the victim. Wouldn't murder make you feel BAD? Yeah. I reckon it would. But feelings aren't really the issue here. If you're against murder, then it might be advantageous to look at things used to kill people and make them less abundant.
The logic here is that because anything used to murder makes us feel equally bad, then all things have an equally likely chance of murdering, therefore, don't try to regulate guns.
The impression that I get is that these kinds of arguments are sprung on people like riddles and you really can't engage with them on good faith because the premises are flawed to begin with. And then, as the recipient struggles with this tangle of logic, the speakers feels they've succeeded. I'm know this is common in many circles of many kinds.
No comments:
Post a Comment