So…this post is political. Those closest to me know my politics, and it’s probably not wise to share my views on LinkedIn. However, I believe it’s essential for any reader to know that I’m an Independent, a gun owner, a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal.
America’s WickedVUCA gun control debate is about misdirection and fallacies. Politicians opposing sensible gun reform employ numerous fallacies to distort the information their constituents consume to fear-monger. Fear-mongering constituents’ reality prevents real change.
Humans perceive the world through their perspective made up of information they receive and interactions with the real world. When a person combines information with real-world interactions, it forms their reality bias. Anti-gun control reality biases are based on a person’s beliefs and information plus their interaction with Anti-gun control politicians.
The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Anti-gun control politicians are highly effective at employing multiple fallacies or pivoting from one to another to alter real-world biases. It’s worth noting that some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception. Below are a few gun anti-control fallacies worth unraveling.
Anti-gun control arguments appeal to the authority of the Second Amendment to support their arguments. Appeal to authority is the misuse of an authority’s opinion to support an argument. While an authority’s opinion can represent evidence and data, it becomes a fallacy if their expertise or authority is overstated, illegitimate, or irrelevant to the topic. The Second Amendment is broad enough for society to decide if assault weapons should be in the hands of 18-year-old men. It is also broad enough to allow society to decide if background checks make common sense. The Second Amendment does not state which Arms to keep and bear and not to conduct background checks.
An appeal to ignorance (also known as an “argument from ignorance”) argues that a proposition must be true because it has not been proven false or there is no evidence against it. Anti-gun control politicians argue that “there are enough gun laws.” Yet mass shootings continue to happen with assault weapons legally obtained.
A false dilemma or false dichotomy presents limited options — typically by focusing on two extremes — when more possibilities exist. The phrase “America: Love it or leave it” is an example of a false dilemma. Anti-gun control arguments create the false dilemma that sensible gun reform is an assault on the Second Amendment. Sensible gun reform focuses on the “more possibilities exist.”
A search for the perfect solution—falsely assuming that the solution should not be adopted because part of a problem would remain after a solution is tried. Anti-gun control politicians argue laws do not apply to criminals, and gun control does not address the issue of gun-related crimes. This is akin to speeding on the highway. Speed limits do not apply to speeders, and speed signs do not address the issues of speed-related accidents. Does this mean America should not try to reduce speeding or gun violence? No! Perfect is the enemy of good.
What’s my point? We all need to be informed voters who look out for fallacious arguments and hold our politicians accountable. It’s not just gun control; it includes myriad important issues on the left and the right, e.g., infrastructure, national debt, women’s rights, etc.