Common fallacies in the gun debate
Tags: libertarian gun rights natural rights John locke
Common fallacies in the gun debate published by The 1st Amender
Writer Rating: 2.8750
Posted on 2019-08-24
Writer Description: Changing the way people think about news.
This writer has written 200 articles.
Many people have brought in many points on both sides of the gun control debate. Additionally many of these viewpoints are drastically flawed, both for and against gun control. As a seeker of truth, I try to find truths that would contradict or would falsify my statements for a seek of higher knowledge. To find this higher knowledge, I often like to read the arguments that are made for and against a topic, whether they go for or against my own personal belief, that we come to an overall consensus hopefully worthy of your time to read. Some of the common debates for gun control, but are ultimately rendered useless due to logical fallacies are as follows:
- The lives of children are at stake when speaking about gun control issues. Children are more important than your gun rights.
Unfortunately, by leaning on a pillar of emotion to exhibit an otherwise valuable point, ultimately, sent into the trash due to the pillar itself being a hollow manifestation of a real argument. By appealing to emotion itself, namely, that people inherently care for children and strikes an emotional chord, we tend to speak in favor of gun control not from a logical or intellectual standpoint, but from an emotional one. Due to this realization, this is not a valid argument under any circumstance. By talking about the amount of deaths in the United States in comparison to other developed countries would be a much more grounded argument "for" gun control.
- We're not in the 18th century anymore. We live in different times. Different times call for different measures.
Unfortunately, while not in the revolutionary period of the United States, historical context dictates that it is not only government that grows tyrannical, but people as well. If people in general have historically turned on brethren, is it not logical to assume this to happen again? Should an individual have a right to defend their body and property with whatever tool necessary? Additionally, what of invading nations? Just because the United States is surrounded by water in this globalist age, we cannot simply assume that we are disconnected from the strife and troubles of those overseas.
Several attacks on the United States have happened within our lifetimes and that doesn't even include those who might protest, and even violate, inalienable rights that are granted to you at birth. A more modern understanding to allow people realization to the validity of guns: Does an individual have a right to defend their business or property from Antifa, which would physically attack an individual's life for their political doctrine? What if KKK ran around trying to ransack black businesses and neighborhoods? Do minorities possess the ability to defend themselves? Do Muslims have the right to establish Sharia Law against basic rules of enlightenment? Of course, the answer is, in order to have a right to your property, you must have an ability and a right to defend oneself with whatever means necessary to do so. This includes guns.
- Hunting is fun and all, but we really should have some reasonable gun control to fix the violence issue.
Given that we don't even spend the time to talk "why" we have gun rights, but to counterfeit the original argument, a mere derivative parody of defending pro gun rights brought down into a mutant manifestation. Taking the argument of "I have a right to defend myself" into "hunting is great BUT..." is a disingenuous argument, as it does not pertain to the original argument. Anyone who uses the word "hunting" as a part of their pro gun control debate is immediately cast off to the side due to disingenuous nature to not seek the truth, but to bend and abide by a ideological doctrine.
Do not fret if you believe I am pro-gun rights. The reality is, I am pro truth. If someone would come to me with statements of truth, I must cast aside my understanding of how things are to be, and simply modify them or improve on what I have learned so far. This includes statements that are "pro-gun" rights yet provide little to no substance.
- The government could come after you some day, so you should have a right to own a gun.
While this could be true, the issue I have with this statement is that it is only half true. Whether you have or have not government knocking at your door is irrelevant. The reality is that people in general can team up against you in a chaotic typhoon upon your stead. While government, the voted wishes of a collected mass of people, can descend upon your stead and destroy your very life; it is much more probable that people themselves do the same. To ensure individual's lives are not destroyed due to natural strife between classes, races, wealth, ethnicities, all must have a right to own their guns.
- The media is biased. All they do is talk propaganda.
While the statement may very well be true, the problem with the argument is that it is non-substantive. Rather than speaking on an argument that the media said, instead it is derived down into a destruction of the source, regardless of whether or not it is correct. Often times, people who are pro gun or anti-gun should be able to look at a news spot by Fox News or CNN and come to research on the topic being said that bothers them so much. The attempt is not to refute or make it wrong, but to verify and confirm if it is true or not.
Understanding our culture of the United States, or rather, that we ultimately protect inalienable rights, I have provided my argument of gun rights. The first premise is that you have a right to your body. Why? Because a king, a ruler, a despot, a boss, a president, does not own you. We consider the fact of slavery to be wrong, nobody can effectively own your body. This was the main argument against slavery in the 18th century by fundamental Liberals of the time, and continued to be a festering wound on the United States even today. Ultimately, you own your body. So, being that you own your body, that comes into the argument what you can and cannot do with your body. One thing you can do with your body is labor. But being that you express energy into your body and exert it with the abilities of your mind, do you not then own your own labor? The matter of fact is, you do own your own labor. You can even sell your labor to whoever it is you please if it so be your wishes. Because in order to own your body, how can you not own your own labor?
Given that you have a right to own your own body and therefore labor, who is it to say that you would not in theory claim ownership to property itself? Now I don't inherently mean just land, but could also own into object as well. Just as I cannot come to stealing someone's purse for my well-being, as I do not own their property. The inalienable right to property is just as important, if not paramount, to ownership of body. How can one possess the basic ability to take care of their body, pamper, or rise up from the muck of poverty if everything can be stolen at the flick of wrist? Of course then, it must be so, regardless of government's decrees, you must possess ownership of body, of liberty, and of property itself. Or what is otherwise known as the natural rights of man which supersede culture and doctrine itself with evolutionary, or natural rights.
Though with all that theoretical nonsense, how does that equate to ownership of guns? Of course, in order to defend your very inalienable rights from those who seek to unlawfully steal it from you, would you not in theory have a right to defend your very body with whatever tools necessary to defend yourself? What right does government have, or people have, to revoke that very ability? The basic ability to own your very body, liberty, and property?
You have the right to stay anonymous in your comments, share at your own discretion.