We keep shoving children into the forefront of the gun debate, and most will say, "Of course. They're getting shot." But we're all getting shot. Using children over and over to advance a claim is tantamount to exploitation - an appeal to pathos for the sake of persuasion. Over and over I see the argument that "Because we have not passed gun laws, Republicans don't care about the welfare of children." Obviously, they do care about children, but injecting children in the debate opens the door to more fallacies: if you cared about children, you wouldn't allow abortion. If you cared about children, you would provide better health care and education...Now you want to ban guns. Using children in this way, sends us into reactionary sentiments, not into reasoned analysis.
In the most recent tragedy that puts the gun control debate back in the limelight, what do you think is the most telling element?
( 1 ) Is it that an assault rifle was used by a teenager? ( 2 ) Or is it that children were killed by a teenager with an assault rifle? ( 3 ) Or is it that there weren't enough thoughts and prayers in the community to prevent that from happening?
Which is the most topical question for you? Is not engaging in the most important question out of those three simply denial?
@Desertwriter As in what is the most important element in the gun debate in regards to the recent tragedy in Florida? As in what element in the gun debate do you think "sticks out" the most in regards to the recent tragedy in Florida?
I understand that sometimes its best to argue without the distraction of emotion. But what if the topic of the argument IS about the subject of that emotion?
(I'm being obtuse on purpose in that last paragraph. I purposefully did not use words in that last paragraph that relate to either Florida or the gun debate.)