All of them.
That’s only true if the gun-control position depends on emotion, rather than reason. Is that the case?
No, “gun rights folks” is too broad a class to make that judgement. Some of them are reasonable, and some are not.
So, to your mind, the gun control movement depends entirely on the raw emotions of national and personal tragedies. I give (most of) them more credit than you do, apparently, as some of their ideas are rational and do withstand logical scrutiny.
They would have to be mindless objects to be used as mindless objects. I say we get closer to the truth being that this round of mass gun violence has caused the victims parents and others close to the dead and wounded to realize they have stood by silently when it happened to someone else, and now enough is enough.
They found that there is a President now in office who also believes enough is enough.
In this case like minds have come together.
Why don’t you explain why you think the president could not be a prop for the parents?
That shows why Rand Paul is no where’s near being factual with his biased and unreasonable accusation.
No. Word games do not a reasoned argument make.
Unlikely. More likely they are being driven by emotion.
I don’t even know what that means, but if you say the parents are using Obama, that does not exclude the idea that Obama is also using them.
He’s stating his opinion, and it’s not at all unreasonable. We see people being used as props by politicians all the time. I suspect Rand Paul has done something like this at some time or other.
Calling the parents “props” is certainly inappropriate and shows lack of character. It’s funny, individuals have no right injecting themselves in political matters, but all sorts of lobbyists for groups and corporations do. We truly have a fucked up political system.
I don’t see them as props, I see them as examples of the consequences of our choices, putting a face on what would otherwise be cold statistics. Sometimes I think it helps a lot (eg MADD). I think calling them props is dismissive at best, they were there because they chose to be, and agreed with the President. You couldn’t get me to stand next to a politician in silent service to a position I didn’t agree with, would you?
More people die in two days due to coal pollution than in the entire past decade due to mass shootings. Should we freak out and do something about it, or have a rational discussion about the best way to minimize harmful pollution?
Why must my family die early just so that you can have your lethal mass killing electricity? Are you a heartless monster?
Emphasis added. That’s pretty much the definition of a prop.
Freedom of speech is not just freedom of speech on matters that do not affect us emotionally. If these survivors of victims want to use politicians as props and vice versa to make their point, they have at least as much right to do it as those who complain about the Holocaust. Oh yeah, I went there.
As far as I’m concerned he was trying to play the usual political games with Obama and in doing so called these people props. Almost all of politics is based on emotional appeals, and all of Rand’s politics are. It’s all weasel-y. He may not have intended to call these people ‘props’, but that’s what he did, and I don’t see any sign he regretted it. Those people pay his salary, and he owes them an apology. If he wants to keep the bullshit to political intramurals he’s free to do so, but this is a sign to me of his contemptuous attitude a la Mitt Romney.
As if Rand Paul and his fellow Republicans don’t routinely trot out poor oppressed corporations as props to gut “job-killing regulations”. Apparently the only causes that can be lobbied before the Senate are right-wing causes.
Nobody said they didn’t have the right. Appeal to emotion is still a fallacy. It’s also an insult to the intelligence of the American people. Political debate should be based on evidence and logic.
Tugging at heartstrings is at best manipulative and at worst misleading and dishonest. And it doesn’t matter which party does it.
If there were no mass shootings involving firearms there would a gun control movement would not be required, now would it?
My point that you have cited in your response is that your, “We need to pause for more leisurely debate” is in itself an unreasonable plea based upon emotional ties to the right to possess firearms with few restrictions or no restrictions at all beyond self-governance.
What’s to leisurely debate after so many incidents over so at least two decades.
Why can’t the families have a vote on a bill?
Why don’t they deserve it?
Many pro football players have brain damage as a result of their chosen profession. Junior Seau is an example of this. Does this define him as a ‘prop’? Is any NFLer who shares about their disease a prop? When Michael j Fox appears on television without benefit of his Parkinson’s medication, is he a 'prop"? When the mom who started MADD talked about losing her daughter, was her daughter reduced to being just a prop? I find the use of the word in this context dismissive and irrelevent.
Mass shooting deaths in the past seven years: 934. This uses the FBI definition, which is a shooting that kills four or more people.
People murdered by firearms in 2011 alone: 8,583.
Mass shooting are a small part of the U.S.'s violence problem, and should be a correspondingly small part of the U.S. gun control movement. It isn’t, for various reasons, some of them unflattering: sensationalism, and victims that frequently aren’t as poor and dark-skinned as most people murdered by firearms and are thus more relatable to the average American.
Glad to know you can read my mind. How do you know that I, in fact, advocate the right to possess firearms with few or no restrictions beyond self-governance?
The bills that have been introduced. They haven’t been sitting around for decades, more like a few weeks.
Because 60 Senators didn’t vote to bring a bill to a vote.
Why don’t the Newtown families deserve a vote on a bill? Because they’re just citizens like the rest of us, they have no special claim on the proceedings of the Senate.
How many of the mass murderers since the bombings at Columbine were mentally unstable and a threat to society. All of them.
Arizona Sheriff Clarence Dupnik couldn’t be bothered with the multiple reports from fellow students, the college staff, family, and friends of the monster Loughner that Loughner was crazy and dangerous. As a result of Dupnik’s inaction, that monster was free and on the streets to optained a firearm and shoot Gabby Giffords. If you want to prevent a future problem similar to this - fire the Dupniks’.
The bomber who shot up a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado was also nuttier than a fruitcake. Why wasn’t he locked up, restrained, or heavily medicated BEFORE he could hurt anyone?
Anyone can carry a firearm into a “gun free” zone. Only the law-abiding refrain from violating the law. Crazy people don’t care what the laws say.
Was there anything in the latest gun-ban bills that would force Dupnik to do his job? Was there anything that would prevent these bombers from building bombs?
Did the Newtown families actually know what was in the bills they were lobbying for? And did they know that these bills wouldn’t have prevented the Sandy Hook monster from killing their children?
Again, Paul didn’t say they were props, he said they were being used as props, which is not at all the same thing. He said:
Bolding mine.
Yes to all. Did you think there was always something bad about being a prop?
Props can be used to convey useful information or they can be used to tug at one’s heartstrings.
Generally the folks in favor of tighter gun regulations, would be in favor of requiring Energy producers to clean up coal to protect the health of the general public.
There has been a steady evolution of cleaner fuels in all aspects of energy production.
Secondly electricity is a commercial necessity without which more people would perish in modern technologically advanced society than with it.
The same cannot be said about the mass production of thirty round clips and firearms that go beyond hunting and home protection.
Most Americans don’t walk around with fully loaded thirty round firearms and manage to live meaningful and full un-assaulted lives.
Now imagine DrCube’s response to your reasoned points to be filling a stage with the families of dead coal miners and those who’ve died of coal-related lung problems, and condeming you as heartless.
It is only a fallacy in formal logic. Virtually every policy a government makes fills emotional needs and virtually all human activity is about emotional needs. Preventing idiotic gun deaths is about preventing sad. One way to achieve persuasiveness when making such an argument is to refer to the sad it will cause by showing sad people made sad by the sad. The fact that the audience also has a sad by this display is effective argument directly relevant. The kind of fallacy you are referring to is when P=Q and the presenter reminds us what a dick Q is, therefore we might hate P and that isn’t the point that P=Q.