Yet another person is writing about gun laws. He asks, "Can someone tell me what the age is for a child to carry a handgun or an assault rifle?" He talks talks mockingly about arming all the "vulnerable" people in society and then claims that if one objects to any of it, one should advocate gun control.
This is not a logical conclusion. Rather, it is an empty plea playing on people's emotions. If I oppose a child obtaining a gun, I do not necessarily support more (or any) gun laws. If the former is my position, I could support trying to convince parents not to give guns to their kids. I could support a privately owned store banning parents who do. Their are many nonviolent ways of protesting something. But, that I dislike something does not necessarily imply that I support it being banned by the force of law. I oppose kids' being fed lots of sugar, but I don't oppose a ban on sugar for kids. (Does Bill Kingston?)
Here is a logical statement: IF you support the universal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, THEN you must oppose criminal background checks for gun purchases. Where do you stand on this, Mr. Kingston?
No comments:
Post a Comment