Discussing firearms in public is fraught with peril. It is a subject I often tread carefully around until I know my audience. I have lost contact with friends and even family over such discussions. I have had all kinds of ugly accusations thrown at me because I defend my Second Amendment rights—such as “Fine, more dead kids, just so you can have your toys!”
Thus, unless I know I am among like-minded friends, discussing the topic gives me heartburn. Nonetheless, here I go again.
I have found that most people are incapable of rational discussion when it comes to firearms. Even if the discussion starts out factually, and matter-of-factly, within a few exchanges things almost invariably deteriorate into a morass of emotion, bad data, and propaganda. It becomes a near Herculean task to formulate a point-by-point refutation when virtually every sentence is inaccurate, misinformed, or simply hysterical.
Even physicians—such highly educated people—are not necessarily capable of logical, rational discussion about firearms. The conversation can rapidly devolve into arguments based on “straw man” fallacies and appeals to emotion, rather than on hard facts and data. Even what actually constitutes “good” data can come under dispute, given the medical community’s propensity for data-padding and lack of academic rigor when it comes to firearms “research”.
One such recent discussion on social media ended for me when the other party resorted to using the words “rocket launcher”. This is not only a logical fallacy called Reductio ad absurdum (or “Appeal to Extremes”) but also, using the words “rocket launcher” has become the gun discussion’s equivalent of invoking Godwin’s Law. And unbeknownst to me at the time, that discussion was with another physician.
by drgo.us
