"Gun Violence" as a Rhetorical Trick in the Gun-Control Debate

[PaulB47]

A good article:

"Gun Violence" as a Rhetorical Trick in the Gun-Control Debate (https://mises.org/blog/gun-violence-rhetorical-trick-gun-control-debate)

Read More

 

[2A2Dend]

I hope you don't mind. I thought this appropriate to slide in.

The Oath Keepers. Fringe? Wacky? Or Absolutely Mainstream And Dedicated To The Constitution And The Oath To Uphold It? And Their Founder, Stewart Rhodes? A Radical? Or Brilliant Yale Trained Constitutional Scholar? | On the Right Side Radio (http://ontherightsideradio.com/stewart-rhodes-interview/)

 

[Member 5605]

Good article Paul

 

[BlackRyder]

Great article. The only problem I see, and have been encountering lately, is that pro-gun control people always immediately dismiss any of the facts and statistics I quote- even the ones from the cdc study (they even refuse to believe that the cdc actually did a study on gun violence, having been told over and over again that the nra refuses to "allow" a cdc directed study to happen).
I'm getting a little tired of banging my head against the wall here, and being called a lunatic gun nut, simply because I see the opposite side of the issue than they do, and have facts to back up my viewpoint. Isn't it funny how a lot of "open minded" people refuse to hear an opinion that isn't completely in concordance with their own? isn't it funny how a lot of "open minded" people won't treat a man respectfully, simply because he doesn't look like them or dress like them? Isn't it funny how a lot of "open minded" people will judge a stranger based solely upon his "uniform"?
Sorry to go off on a tangent... I'm just tired of the hypocrisy being shoved in my face so much lately.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I think it goes against the tone of the narrative! People are starting to hear and see the truth, but the left just marginalizes them and forces more and more rhetoric through the corporate sponsored MSM for the Sheeple to ingest! The only hope is the Sheeple start waking up and becoming Sheep Dogs! Good articles guys!

 

[etrain16]

As I've stated in many posts before, it's obvious these folks care nothing about saving lives. If they did, then perhaps facts would have an impact with them. This is an argument against guns by people that hate guns and gun owners. No fact, no chart, will ever convince them to change their view. It seems about the only thing that does ever change the views of these folks is if they become a victim of violent crime themselves and find themselves unable to provide for their own self-defense. Beyond that, they will twist facts, they will present false information, they will alter words, they will say things that many folks will take as truth when it's not. Too many people blindly accept what someone says just because they're on television or social media, never bothering to learn the truth themselves.

I agree with the article, I only wish it and others like it would actually make a difference.

 

[206thsense]

As I've stated in many posts before, it's obvious these folks care nothing about saving lives. If they did, then perhaps facts would have an impact with them. This is an argument against guns by people that hate guns and gun owners. No fact, no chart, will ever convince them to change their view. It seems about the only thing that does ever change the views of these folks is if they become a victim of violent crime themselves and find themselves unable to provide for their own self-defense. Beyond that, they will twist facts, they will present false information, they will alter words, they will say things that many folks will take as truth when it's not. Too many people blindly accept what someone says just because they're on television or social media, never bothering to learn the truth themselves.

I agree with the article, I only wish it and others like it would actually make a difference.

Most diehard anti-gunners don't use facts anymore, because the facts back up the pro-2A side.

Instead, you have them making emotional arguments based on personal anecdotes that use a new set of terms such as:

"military-style weapons"
"assault-style rifles"
"gun violence"
"senseless gun violence"

All of these terms are meant to provoke emotional responses and frame debates in a manner which they can win - emotions trumping facts. After all, we can't debate away someone's feelings of being scared. We can point to facts that say their fears are exaggerated, or that technically they should be more afraid of things like an automobile accident, but basing their arguments on an undebateable thing like emotion is a clever, underhanded way to convince the undecided public to be against the 2A and guns.

 

[PaulB47]

We shouldn't forget that for every gun prohibitionist who will never be convinced no matter what, there are 5 or 8 or 10 people in the muddled middle who can be swayed. They can be swayed not only by our responding with calm logic, but also swayed away from the prohibitionist position by the very tactics of the prohibitionists. It's not impressive to respond to logic with idiocy.

No need to be despondent. The prohibitionist side is losing.

 

[BlackRyder]

One thing I like to bring up when countering an emotional/irrational argument based off statistically insignificant yet gruesome events is something called the "fallacy of misleading vividness". I'm sure a lot of you on this board know the premise behind that, if you don't, check out the link below, or google it yourself!
The Logical Fallacy of Misleading Vividness (http://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/Misleading-Vividness.htm)

 

[Ura-Ki]

Good news is people ARE waking up to the cold hard truth, My own Mother included! Now instead of blindly believing/following the Media slant, she is asking good well reasoned questions. Even she caught the lies about the Dallas shootings ( she is very pro B.O.R. Liberal Democrat) SO I was surprised to hear the questions that have been coming from her. I wish more would wake up before it's too late! We just need to keep calm, keep from getting our ire up, and maintain focus to help these good folks as they start to see truth!

 

[Captain O]

I have a B/A in Speech Communication, and the "semantic manipulation" of the left has been in use since the 1960's.

The ballad of the "Saturday Night Special" springs to mind. "The 'cheap easily, concealed handgun' commits more crimes because they are handy." This spurious (and baseless) argument was being thrust into the public's collective face through the mainstream media. They never mentioned that:

a) Poor people are the victims of most violent armed attacks and,

b) these individuals cant afford expensive arms of any kind.

This makes them easy prey for drug addicts and those with malice aforethought and the mentally depraved. If they can't afford a firearm, they become "sitting ducks".

I could go on about the gangs and the need for a long-range (50+ feet) weapon for a multiple assailant scenario, but you get the idea.