Earlier today on ABC's This Week, Republican Pennsylvania Representative Lou Barletta had the following back and forth with Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman regarding gun control:
Barletta: "This is a perfect example why people believe Washington is broke. This horrific incident in Newtown, and here what is our debate? It's focusing on guns when there is not one person at this table who really believes that that's the root of what happened there and - when we have people that get into the mind-set that they want to harm people, as a former mayor, I know people will get guns no matter what laws we pass, just like the illegal drug -"
Krugman: "I caught you on a false statement there because I do believe that guns are the root. There are crazy people everywhere, but mass murderers are a lot more common here than -"
Barletta: "You believe guns are more important than dealing with mental health and our culture. Is our culture lending itself that we're raising children that are desensitized to murder, to killing people."
Krugman: "I look at the international differences - countries that have effective gun control have a lot fewer -"
Barletta: "Would banning spoons stop obesity?"
Barletta's final comment is reminiscent of many others I've read from far-right politicians during the gun control debate. Like the others, it fails on multiple levels.
First off, Democrats are not calling for a total ban on guns. I don't know where some are getting that idea from, but it's simply not true. The only type of gun which could potentially be in jeopardy of being banned is the assault rifle. A majority of Americans feel it should be banned and this would not be the first time in our history (recent history, no less) that such a ban was enacted.
Secondly, no one is claiming that stricter gun laws would put a complete halt on gun violence. What many gun control advocates are implying is that stricter gun laws would decrease gun violence, as it would make it mathematically less likely for a "dangerous" individual to legally purchase a firearm. As I've asked before, if we're not going to enact a law simply because it's going to be broken at least once, then what is the point of enacting any laws?
Lastly, this is a prime example of false equivalence. Barletta is saying that spoons are to obesity as guns are to gun violence, but that's simply not accurate. Guns are always the tool used to enforce gun violence, which leads to multiple injuries and deaths every year. You're not going to find crimes involving "knives," "baseball bats," and "hammers" under the annual statistic of gun violence. Guns are the lone tool used to measure those statistics. However, spoons are not the only tool used to cause obesity. In fact, outside of ice cream, what other extremely fatty foods do people only use spoons for? Cupcakes? Not usually. Cake? Not typically, unless it's an ice cream cake. Popcorn? Not unless they're special people. What do I use a spoon most for when it comes to consuming food? Soup. Last I heard, there wasn't a big obesity-by-way-of-eating-too-much-soup-epidemic running rampant in this country. When I think of causes for obesity, I typically place soup around #1,423,866, sandwiched in between sleeping and walking.
Not always, but a lot of times, I find that the fattiest foods most people simply use their hands to eat. If Barletta wants to continue on with his false equivalency, I'd have to ask him, "Should we ban hands to stop obesity?" Yeah, see how ridiculous that sounds?
In just five words, I've found at least three flaws with Mr. Barletta's argument. That's a sad average of at least one flaw per 0.6 words. At that rate, I have a feeling I'd need to take an entire day off to read through and correct a haiku written by Barletta.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/03/1533151/gop-rep-compares-gun-safety-to-banning-spoons/
Barletta: "This is a perfect example why people believe Washington is broke. This horrific incident in Newtown, and here what is our debate? It's focusing on guns when there is not one person at this table who really believes that that's the root of what happened there and - when we have people that get into the mind-set that they want to harm people, as a former mayor, I know people will get guns no matter what laws we pass, just like the illegal drug -"
Krugman: "I caught you on a false statement there because I do believe that guns are the root. There are crazy people everywhere, but mass murderers are a lot more common here than -"
Barletta: "You believe guns are more important than dealing with mental health and our culture. Is our culture lending itself that we're raising children that are desensitized to murder, to killing people."
Krugman: "I look at the international differences - countries that have effective gun control have a lot fewer -"
Barletta: "Would banning spoons stop obesity?"
Barletta's final comment is reminiscent of many others I've read from far-right politicians during the gun control debate. Like the others, it fails on multiple levels.
First off, Democrats are not calling for a total ban on guns. I don't know where some are getting that idea from, but it's simply not true. The only type of gun which could potentially be in jeopardy of being banned is the assault rifle. A majority of Americans feel it should be banned and this would not be the first time in our history (recent history, no less) that such a ban was enacted.
Secondly, no one is claiming that stricter gun laws would put a complete halt on gun violence. What many gun control advocates are implying is that stricter gun laws would decrease gun violence, as it would make it mathematically less likely for a "dangerous" individual to legally purchase a firearm. As I've asked before, if we're not going to enact a law simply because it's going to be broken at least once, then what is the point of enacting any laws?
Lastly, this is a prime example of false equivalence. Barletta is saying that spoons are to obesity as guns are to gun violence, but that's simply not accurate. Guns are always the tool used to enforce gun violence, which leads to multiple injuries and deaths every year. You're not going to find crimes involving "knives," "baseball bats," and "hammers" under the annual statistic of gun violence. Guns are the lone tool used to measure those statistics. However, spoons are not the only tool used to cause obesity. In fact, outside of ice cream, what other extremely fatty foods do people only use spoons for? Cupcakes? Not usually. Cake? Not typically, unless it's an ice cream cake. Popcorn? Not unless they're special people. What do I use a spoon most for when it comes to consuming food? Soup. Last I heard, there wasn't a big obesity-by-way-of-eating-too-much-soup-epidemic running rampant in this country. When I think of causes for obesity, I typically place soup around #1,423,866, sandwiched in between sleeping and walking.
Not always, but a lot of times, I find that the fattiest foods most people simply use their hands to eat. If Barletta wants to continue on with his false equivalency, I'd have to ask him, "Should we ban hands to stop obesity?" Yeah, see how ridiculous that sounds?
In just five words, I've found at least three flaws with Mr. Barletta's argument. That's a sad average of at least one flaw per 0.6 words. At that rate, I have a feeling I'd need to take an entire day off to read through and correct a haiku written by Barletta.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/03/1533151/gop-rep-compares-gun-safety-to-banning-spoons/
Comments
Post a Comment