MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Charlie Kirk in 2023: "It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights...That is a prudent deal."
*
I've not seen what responses were offered directly to Kirk, but in general demagogues work by constructing their own argument, and counter-argument involves being able to identify any logical fallacies in the foundations of that argument.
Presumably if this line is used again, the counter question should be "what if the gun death is you, or close family, or at your kids' school? When it's close to home and not a faceless crime to the person making the claim. Is that still an acceptable cost?"
It is really easy to make unpleasant measures seem reasonable by taking them as a broad picture. Going the other way and picking the detail is also important to consider.
Also "what are these god-given rights that you need guns to protect? are you telling me that there are no other alternatives, and why they are (if they are) needing protection. It is not a 'this is the only answer' scenario."
*
I've not seen what responses were offered directly to Kirk, but in general demagogues work by constructing their own argument, and counter-argument involves being able to identify any logical fallacies in the foundations of that argument.
Presumably if this line is used again, the counter question should be "what if the gun death is you, or close family, or at your kids' school? When it's close to home and not a faceless crime to the person making the claim. Is that still an acceptable cost?"
It is really easy to make unpleasant measures seem reasonable by taking them as a broad picture. Going the other way and picking the detail is also important to consider.
Also "what are these god-given rights that you need guns to protect? are you telling me that there are no other alternatives, and why they are (if they are) needing protection. It is not a 'this is the only answer' scenario."