It's Official: Gun Control Advocates Want to Rely on Emotions Rather Than Reason

The Second Amendment Foundation recently got ahold of this document being distributed among groups that advocate for more gun control. The document outlines a strategy for engaging other people with the purpose of advancing gun control policy. I was not shocked upon discovering that the document emphasizes the use of emotional arguments rather than facts in trying persuade others to support stricter gun control.

This is something that many gun rights advocates have known for quite some time, in that arguments for gun control appeal to emotions rather than facts, but now we know officially that it is part of the strategy. With that aside though, there are still glaring falsities being put forth in the document, such as pushing ideas and statements that don't even make logical sense. When you apply critical thinking to some of their statements, we realize just how vapid their arguments are.

Here is one example of a ludicrous statement put forth:

"Our police officers are at risk every day when they confront criminals who are armed to the teeth with military-style weapons that are freely available."

Now let's put aside the hyperbole of "military-style" weapons for a moment. This statement wholly ignores that 'assault weapons' have been statistically shown to make up such a small percentage of crime that even banning these weapons outright would have little to no impact on crime. Criminals simply do not use these 'military-style' weapons. In addition to that, convicted criminals are already barred from purchasing firearms under existing laws, so one might wonder how exactly are they 'freely' available. 

While I applaud the authors of this document for creative use of language to form a powerful message, it just goes to show that they are trying to mislead and deceive the public. When people resort to  measures like this to push an agenda, reasonable people must question whether their argument has any merit or credibility.

On the topic of credibility, much of the document focuses on demonizing the NRA. This is a common tactic where one side will label an organization or institution as being representative of their opposition because it is easier to attack a faceless organization than to attack the millions upon millions of individuals who actually believe in what that organization stands for. 

The document readily admits that the NRA is a mainstream organization with a lot of support, but at the same time tries to demonize this institution. Furthermore, it outlines that gun control advocates should not get bogged down in an institution versus institution debate. With the recent reports that the gun control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been misusing public resources for their own purposes,  losing members because they misrepresented themselves, and even went so far as trying to bribe members into staying in the group, it's no wonder that gun control advocates want to stay away from such discussions.

While I could refute much of the documents 'arguments' for gun control piece by piece, the big takeaway here is that gun control advocates' positions rely heavily on emotional impact rather than rational debate, and although many gun rights advocates already know this, we now have the document that actually confirms what we've suspected all along.