I’m all for opposing points of view.
They force me to assess my position to make sure the arguments for it are sound.
What I can’t stand is ignorance.
It’s one thing to object to a point of view; it’s another thing to argue like an idiot.
There’s a lot of that going around.
Read this Facebook post about gun ownership and the Second Amendment to see what I mean:
This guy claims that people with guns – the share of American households with guns is around 34 percent – will only shoot other things but never actually defend themselves against people who want to do them harm.
What’s missing in this claim is that people with guns don’t want to shoot anybody and people who want to do harm stay away from people or situations where they know guns are present. A criminal who suspects that someone has a gun will dissuade him. It’s safer to go after a soft target.
Instead of a gun, the Facebook poster wants victims to be “reasonable.” How is that supposed to work? This is where his “argument” gets even more muddled. I’ve lost his train of thought if he ever had one.
He seems to be saying that the Second Amendment protects and arms the bad guys. Criminals don’t need a right to “keep and bear arms.” They are by definition lawbreakers.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com