Arguing From Both Sides of Their Factoids
January 20th, 2013
In writing the last post, I re-read the definitive posting I made on gun control back in 2006 and the comments, which ranged into late 2007. The last comment I made held a point which I had forgotten about over time, but which points out a very subtle and ironic flaw in two major arguments made by gun advocates. Gun advocates say that gun control or even gun bans are not effective; that with such laws, criminals are still able to get all the guns they need. Gun advocates also argue that if a dictatorship establishes itself in our country, they will institute restrictive gun control or gun bans, and these will be so effective that we will be defenseless against said dictator. See the slight flaw in the reasoning? It's actually quite similar to the arguments made by conservatives about taxing the wealthy: when you try to raise their taxes, the argument is that they don't have enough money to make a difference. But when they want to lower their taxes, the argument is that they are paying the lion's share of the nation's tax revenue. These kinds of inconsistencies betray either the lack of logic or reasoning in creating the argument, and/or a fundamental dishonesty when it comes to making the point.