Let’s hypothesize a wonderful new device on the market that costs $5, can be attached easily to your car, and will warn you if a pedestrian is about to stray into the road. Sounds pretty good, huh? But wait. Turns out it doesn’t always detect small children. Up and coming legislator opines, “Take it off the market. It didn’t save a child last month.”
To me that argument makes no sense, is illogical. Why remove a device that saves some lives even though it doesn’t save all lives.
But this argument is used over and over, recently on the bill passed by the House of Representatives requiring background checks on all individuals purchasing firearms or receiving a gun via a transfer.
What’s important in this discussion is not the cowardly sycophants in the Senate who are sure to oppose, or the small thinking president with his veto toy.
What I’m deploring is the incredible lack of logic driven by self-serving guile in those opposing the bill. Take a look at the following statements offered in opposition:
Those arguments are exactly the same as that given against the $5 device. They try to convince you that because something isn’t perfect, it’s worthless.
Well, my answer to them is a resounding “So What!” Most understand that universal background checks will not stop all shootings, but it surely will stop some shootings. So checks aren’t perfect, but often they work. We must recognize an argument that thwarts logic and call it out for what it is.
This isn’t the only illogical approach used by the background check opposition. Let’s take a look at another hypothetical. An apartment complex is about to pass a rule forbidding pets. In opposition, a voice describes an elderly woman living there with no nearby family. This rule would forbid her from taking in a dog for companionship.
Do you see what that argument does? It takes for granted that the poor woman has every right to have a pet. It gets you to accept that as an unquestionable concept. You’re led to thinking about the suffering inflicted by the proposed rule. You should not consider the unstated premise that she has a right to the dog. But why shouldn’t you question it. There may be good reasons for the rule, including reports by some tenants of allergies or legal requirements from insurance companies.
This is the logic employed by a second type of argument against background checks. Here are two recently used examples:
Do you see how they get you to assume it’s okay to lend your gun to a fearful friend or a co-hunter? Don’t even question those ideas, just realize how background checks would halt such actions. But you should question them. Who says the one needing self-defense would know how to handle the gun or secure it properly or have the proper training or even be able to pass a background check? Why should the fellow hunter be trustworthy or have a clear record just because he’s with you?
Let me make something clear. While I think the desire to lend guns is a terrible idea, my main point is the lack of logic appearing in these arguments.
I hope elementary logic is taught in schools. I would love students early in their training to learn how to spot fallacies in the arguments made by those (politicians or advertisers) who would attempt to influence them, to learn how not to be conned by the people making the arguments. Because those people are very good at it and all of us, young and old, have to be equally good at seeing through the smokescreen.
To me that argument makes no sense, is illogical. Why remove a device that saves some lives even though it doesn’t save all lives.
But this argument is used over and over, recently on the bill passed by the House of Representatives requiring background checks on all individuals purchasing firearms or receiving a gun via a transfer.
What’s important in this discussion is not the cowardly sycophants in the Senate who are sure to oppose, or the small thinking president with his veto toy.
What I’m deploring is the incredible lack of logic driven by self-serving guile in those opposing the bill. Take a look at the following statements offered in opposition:
- This bill would not have prevented the shooting at the Republican congressional baseball practice.
- Criminals who flout the law won’t submit themselves to background checks.
Those arguments are exactly the same as that given against the $5 device. They try to convince you that because something isn’t perfect, it’s worthless.
Well, my answer to them is a resounding “So What!” Most understand that universal background checks will not stop all shootings, but it surely will stop some shootings. So checks aren’t perfect, but often they work. We must recognize an argument that thwarts logic and call it out for what it is.
This isn’t the only illogical approach used by the background check opposition. Let’s take a look at another hypothetical. An apartment complex is about to pass a rule forbidding pets. In opposition, a voice describes an elderly woman living there with no nearby family. This rule would forbid her from taking in a dog for companionship.
Do you see what that argument does? It takes for granted that the poor woman has every right to have a pet. It gets you to accept that as an unquestionable concept. You’re led to thinking about the suffering inflicted by the proposed rule. You should not consider the unstated premise that she has a right to the dog. But why shouldn’t you question it. There may be good reasons for the rule, including reports by some tenants of allergies or legal requirements from insurance companies.
This is the logic employed by a second type of argument against background checks. Here are two recently used examples:
- Checks would prohibit loaning a gun to someone who felt they needed it for self-defense.
- Checks would prevent one hunter from letting another use his gun as they bravely stalk the unarmed prey.
Do you see how they get you to assume it’s okay to lend your gun to a fearful friend or a co-hunter? Don’t even question those ideas, just realize how background checks would halt such actions. But you should question them. Who says the one needing self-defense would know how to handle the gun or secure it properly or have the proper training or even be able to pass a background check? Why should the fellow hunter be trustworthy or have a clear record just because he’s with you?
Let me make something clear. While I think the desire to lend guns is a terrible idea, my main point is the lack of logic appearing in these arguments.
I hope elementary logic is taught in schools. I would love students early in their training to learn how to spot fallacies in the arguments made by those (politicians or advertisers) who would attempt to influence them, to learn how not to be conned by the people making the arguments. Because those people are very good at it and all of us, young and old, have to be equally good at seeing through the smokescreen.
RSS Feed