Ahhhhh, I love a vigorous debate–but without all the fallacies. Admittedly, prisoners (which includes me) are appropriately subject to different rules and policies. And there are many wrinkles to iron out in separating the wheat from the chaff in terms of gun owners. But advancing slippery slope fallacies does nothing to exact improvements to the status quo. Instead, they stall progress and resultantly perpetuate the problem.
Though circumstances (privilege vs. right, prisoner vs law-abiding, etc.) may differ, my concept still applies by analogy. For one, UA, strip search, airport scanner, and breathalyzer tests are administered to detect that which is undetectable otherwise. In matters of imminent (and potential) crises, the focus of preventative measures is on detection, regardless of circumstance. I’d love to hear better ideas than mine on detecting the sinister contents of one’s mind. I anticipated this counterargument.
Two, the 2nd Amendment is a right “only” in theory–not in practice. If it was truly a right, then how could one lose it. Prior to becoming a felon, I too was was a registered gun owner. I lost that “privilege” and am fine with that. I anticipated this counterargument as well.
Three, it is a classic “Ad Hominem” fallacy (an appeal to emotional bias) to attack me instead of my argument, so as to suggest that my criminal status somehow disqualifies me from making an argument. With all due respect, last I checked, my right to free speech wasn’t abrogated by my imprisonment. Let’s try to keep it above the belt. Also anticipated.
Four, it is a classic “Snob Approach” (a subset of “Argumentum as Populum”) fallacy to suggest prisoners are second class citizens compared to law-abiding citizens. I’ve met countless prisoners who have matured to possess the integrity of 10 free persons. I’ve also found the reverse to be true. Also anticipated.
And five, arguing “taxation of a right” sidesteps the nature of my proposal. I get it: if you change the subject or divert the argument from the merits of the real question at issue to some side-point, you win. However, the tactic you’ve employed is deemed a “Red Herring” fallacy. I’m discussing preventing violence to youth and adult innocents, not taxes. Unanticipated, but easily dismantled nonetheless.
All things considered, my goal is not to diminish the rights of responsible gun owners. In fact, I applaud them. I also respect their 2nd Amendment privilege. As a parent of a son who was a victim of random gun violence, I deeply hope that people will learn to stop drawing a hard line in the sand and come together in the interests of the families and victims of gun violence.
Since when did a gun right take precedence over the right to human life? When, and if, you can answer that question with a moral and equitable answer, I’ll humbly concede.
Throw all your darts at me, but please keep “their” bullets away from my son
Categories: Jacob J. Gamet