Memes are entertaining and funny. They're useful for political messaging, but they can also be useful for spreading misinformation, or even deceitful content, in the form of pithy captions and slogans.
When these memes go viral, the captions and slogans become entrained in people's minds. They are filed away under "automatic recall", to be pulled out in any debate or discussion about the topic, and oftentimes, the mind in question hasn't gone through the requisite steps to determine if the slogan is correct or logically consistent. It sounds good; it fits with my preconceived beliefs; therefore it is correct.
Such is the case with pro-gun control memes.
Today I looked at over a hundred pro-gun control / anti-gun memes and protest signs. Almost every single one presented an opinion as fact, contained a serious logical flaw of some kind, or outright lied.
Here are some of the worst offenders, along with my criticism:
So you're telling me you had to fill out a two page form, present a government-issued ID, and submit to a federal background check in order to buy that piece of posterboard?
Because that--at the minimum--is what you have to do to purchase a gun in any state in the U.S. But this guy is saying it was even harder to buy the poster board than to buy an AR. So--did the Walmart cashier subject him to a lie detector test? No, that can't be it. He would have failed. Sharpie competency exam? Waterboarding? Details, please!
This one's very tricky. Unlike our first example, which is obvious lying, I don't think the speaker here realizes the error in what he is suggesting.
Yes. The TSA did change air travel security regulations in response to a failed shoe bombing. Also, if you'll remember a little farther back, the U.S. government created the TSA in response to a major terrorist attack. Over fifteen years later, only 0.6 percent of TSA flaggings have resulted in an arrest, and none of those have been related to terrorism. And not only has the TSA been ineffective at catching terrorists (even with the rule about taking off your shoes in the security line), but its existence has significantly impacted the lives of innocent American travelers in myriad ways, possibly even costing lives
What John Oliver fails to realize is that stricter gun control would have the same effect as the TSA shoe rule, or its liquid ban, or hell, the whole TSA itself: it would not prevent criminals from committing crimes. It would not prevent people bent on committing a public massacre from trying to do it. But it would adversely affect innocent Americans, possibly even costing lives.
Pro tip: If you're going to advocate that a government policy used in one sector of society ought to be used in another, you might want to make sure the policy was at least minimally successful, first.
Ah, here's a good one.
You've probably seen this one passed around. It's almost the perfect tweet: indignant, self-righteous, pointed...but sadly, wrong.
For one thing, if the child was initiating violence against another child, of course you take away the stick. Guess what? When someone commits or attempts to commit murder with a gun, we take away their gun, too. Along with their legal ability to purchase guns. So if that's all Phil meant, he's a little too late.
But there ought to be a fourth option on this list, because it is the fourth (and curiously missing option) that is what many gun control supporters would like to inflict upon the rest of society. The fourth choice should read:
D. Take away every stick from every single child in the neighborhood (and beat them with sticks if they don't comply), then burn every tree in sight.
Most people, I think, would look at this tweet as an analogy in which the parent is the government, the stick is a gun, and the child is a mass shooter. But what it really says, when you consider the reality it attempts to analogize, is that the parent is the government, the stick is ALL GUNS, and the child is ALL OF US. In other words, we are all lost children, the government is our parent, and we have been naughty, playing with sticks, so Daddy or Mommy has to come take the sticks away from us.
How do people even get by in the real world with such infantile attitudes and self-images?
That's sad.
Yes, school shootings are tragic, when they happen. They are gut-wrenching. No one wants them to happen. But the fact remains that school shootings represent only a tiny fraction of all gun deaths in the United States, and an infinitesimally small proportion of total teen deaths per year. You are way more likely to die in a car wreck than in a school shooting, but do you fear riding or driving to school in the mornings? No, that would be irrational. Just like fearing you will die at a school shooting. I empathize with kids and their parents who have this irrational fear (I've had irrational fears before, myself)...but that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend the fear is not irrational. And it definitely doesn't mean I'm going to support their ill-drawn conclusions.
Look, America has more privately owned guns than it does people. If law-abiding gun owners were the ones responsible for gun crime and mass shootings, you'd know it. You'd know it because you wouldn't be able to go anywhere without being shot at. Gun owners are literally all around you, and 99.9% of them will never turn their guns on another human being unless in self defense. So, maybe instead of trying to turn peaceful gun owners into criminals, you should be focused on actual criminals (you know, the ones who create victims?)
Yes, I agree. Human lives are more valuable than guns.
That's why we have the right to bear arms. Guns exist. That's not going to change. And as long as guns exist, criminals will want to use them. And since criminals do not check to ensure they are following the law before committing crimes, they will obtain guns in spite of whatever regulation you propose. And as long as criminals have guns, peaceful non-criminals will need guns to defend themselves from criminals. Self-defense is a basic human right, a logical extension of self-ownership. If you try to use the government to take that right away from people, then you are the one who is undervaluing life.
Ah. Here we go. Tell us what you really think, creepy protest guy.
For those who don't know, this guy is putting a spin on the common pro-gun slogan, "You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands."
What's interesting is that this retort contains an implicit threat to murder, whereas the original pro-gun version does not. Make no mistake, this guy is saying "I want peaceful gun owners to be forced to surrender their guns, and if they do not comply, I want them killed." Of course, he's not going to do the killing himself. He'd rather send the government to do the dirty work in his place. I wonder what kind of mental and moral gymnastics he has to do to justify the murder of innocent people as punishment for the actions of criminals. I wonder if he knows that he's basically asking for civil war.
Part 2 is up! Check it out!
Hi, I'm Starr!
I believe all human interactions should be consensual
I am sure the guy with the poster board is comparing his purchase of a neon-yellow poster board with the gun he purchased on the black market.
Black market, they come to you. You give them cash, you get the item. No tax, no waiting, no hassle, what you see is what you get.
The guy probably then went to Woolworths and found the poster board section completely decimated. Then he went to Save-on-drugs and found they didn't have any neon-yellow. So then, he marched, half way down main street to the Michaels to finally pay too much for a poster board.
That has to be it.
That's the only logical explanation.
Nice law you got there. It'd be terrible if the black market didn't give two shits.
Of course you would come up with such an amazing format considering all of what has been happening as far as protest and memes are concerned to really express the illogic of "liberal" statists. (Ironically it is that liberals want to take away peaceful people's right to bear arms.)
I thought you did a really good job a little short of actually writing out the logical fallacies that the meme / posters were committing. But I thought you did a really great job of writing it out in layman's terms. I will say this in conclusion I feel like I was on the cusp of writing this article but I find it an exercise in futility to express a point that doesn't even need to be made anymore considering that anybody with the most basic and remedial abilities can watch a YouTube video go to Home Depot and buy the requisite tools and make an AR-15 ghost gun in their basement in a matter of hours with parts that they've bought online. Parts that do not require a background check or any sort of inspection.
I've got a meme in the lineup for tomorrow's post that is perfect for addressing the new reality of how easy it is to make your own AR-15.
But did you hear that YouTube banned all videos containing instructions on how to make or modify guns? Now people are posting their videos to PornHub instead, lol. They should check out DTube.
I didn't hear that it was specifically about how to make and modify guns. I thought it was videos about guns in general. I'll be at I still see gun videos going up on YouTube. But yeah of course they're going to go to pornhub and eventually they will be on DTube.
The article I read said it wasn't all gun videos. I think they're trying to make a distinction between hunting/sport videos and "all that other crazy white terrorist stuff", lol.
Well said Starr. Thanks for adding a sane contribution to the argument. I wish I could have said conversation instead of argument. But let's face it, a conversation requires thoughtful listening and as you point out there is not a lot of thought going on in this argument.
A friend of mine made a really good point the other day...
He said, "It's not up to us to convince them to let us keep our guns. It's up to them to convince us to surrender them." Which is true, since persuasion is the only legitimate way to accomplish political goals. Of course, we all know that political goals are nearly never accomplished legitimately; instead they are accomplished with force.
But you're right, there is not a lot of thought going on on that side of the argument. Which is why they must resort to force to get their goals met.
nice post..i like it
You're right, sometimes we are so misinformed by things like Ads, memes, posters and flyers, and these can really lead to bad blood and beef between people and government