You won't find a stronger defender of the Second Amendment than me. And I am completely comfortable debating the cause and effect of an increase in school violence. But to a couple of freshman republicans it appears that logic is tossed to the wind so long as they can "appear" to be second amendment advocates.
Take this story from The Hill:
Two freshman Republicans introduced contrary bills that would end federal law requiring that areas around schools be designated as "gun free zones." These bills, H.R. 35 from Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) and H.R. 133 from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), are a response to findings that violence in and around schools has increased since the gun free zone law took effect in 1990.
"By disarming qualified citizens and officials in schools we have created a dangerous situation for our children," Stockman said. "In the 22 years before enactment of 'gun free school zones' there were two mass school shootings.
"In the 22 years since enactment of 'gun free schools' there have been 10 mass school shootings," he added. "Not only has the bill utterly failed to protect our children it appears to have placed them in danger."
Does Stockman really think that we are that stupid? Or is he really that stupid? Do these guys who have thrown themselves into one of the greatest deliberative bodies in the world go there without any training whatsoever in reason, logic and debate?
You may not know the logical fallacy in the above examples given by Stockman by name, but you surely recognize it. The proper name is "post hoc ergo propter hoc". The fallacy confuses 'correlation' for 'causation', or mistakenly claiming that one thing caused another to happen since they happen in sequence.
Here are some commonly cited examples:
- "Every time that rooster crows, the sun comes up. That rooster must be very powerful and important!"
- "Nearly all heroin addicts used marijuana before they tried heroin. Clearly marijuana use leads to heroin addiction."
The argument is so filled with fallacy that the speaker has demonstrated either that he is the dumbass or he thinks you are.
Oh, and I might add, what chance do you think these bills have? No seriously, it's one thing to suggest that schools have guards and quite another to let anybody who wants to carry a gun onto school property do so.
Yes, I remember the days when I brought my shotgun to school in my car so I could go squirrel hunting when classes let out and I remember showing it around in the parking lot to my buddies and even my teachers who admired it or compared it to their own. And yes, I remember the days when we traded pocket knives at recess but is now really the time to give the left a bunch of out of touch extremists to point at and cry "WITCH!" with this kind of talk?
So why do this? Answer: To get attention. As John Boehner said in his acceptance speech: "if you have come here to see your name in lights or to pass off political victory as accomplishment, you have come to the wrong place. The door is behind you."
Instead of teabags, maybe we ought to send these guys some tighty whiteys with a door stop in the back, you know, so that door doesn't hit them in the * * * on the way out.