Memer Refuted

Here is a meme that popped up on my dad’s Facebook page. We all see tons of these everyday, but because it was shared by my father and because I want to promote open-mindedness (or at least sound debate) in the people I admire, it seemed appropriate to look at all of the claims made in this little art piece. Because thorough examination of something and social media are an anathema of each other, this breakdown needed more space than a Facebook comment can give.  

So here is the meme:

This certainly raises a lot of points, but like many memes and other things shared on the internet, it makes several logical leaps that fail to land. And since it makes logic its core premise, it seems like the right way to examine each claim/statement. As it turns out, logic is different from common sense. There are rules to logic, ones meant to keep discussions and debates on-topic and concise with supporting facts and examples rooted in the shared rules (e.g. you can debate which tastes better, apples or oranges, but you can’t then choose a winner based on the color of the fruit). 

For this meme, the general conceit seems to be that guns are a great solution to many problems and that current calls for stricter gun laws or enforcement (except when used in a kind of Either/Or fallacy for #7) are alarmist and not needed. Worries about guns and gun violence are unnecessary. Plus a few digs at millennial culture, feminism, trans rights, immigrants and the poor.  

With that basic premise, let’s look at how logic applies to each of the 9 supporting points above (diehard logicians, please forgive my amatuer application):

1 – Eleven teens die each day because of texting while driving. Maybe it’s time to raise the age of Smart(sic) phone ownership to 21.

People do die from texting and general cell phone use while driving. Young drivers are especially susceptible to this because they are new to driving and have increasingly digital social circles. And while an age limit to own smartphones doesn’t exist (and so can’t be raised), almost all states in the US have made it illegal to text and drive, with several others banning cell use while driving altogether, which resulted in safer roads. So if we want to look to smartphones as a model, then we should be banning guns from where they cause the most damage. 

Contextually, I believe this is tying regulations over teen deaths regarding guns to those regarding texting and driving and assuming its preposterous. Something along the lines of “How ridiculous it would be to impose limits on something like cell phones because of teen deaths, why are we doing it to guns?” Or, pointing out that apparent scrutiny is not being given to cell phones when their death toll among teens is much higher. This is a False Equivalence between the two points. And one that actually could be made for stricter laws around guns.

2 – If gun control laws actually worked, Chicago would be Mayberry.

To unpack this one it is important to note where this talking point comes from, which is the oft-cited “Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the US, but still has gun crime” argument. While that has been fact-checked a lot, and many good points could be raised that include actually looking at the strictest gun laws in the country (California) or at what laws actually exist (many stricter laws were overturned (many with NRA pressure/backing)), this is still a logically fallacious point. This is a Sharpshooter or Cherry Picking fallacy with a little bit of Black-or-White/Nirvana fallacy thrown in for good measure.

By looking strictly at one data case (largely Chicago gun violence in 2016), this point tries to devalue other places where stricter gun laws appear to be working. It also doesn’t consider other outside factors at play in the system of Chicago. Then it goes the extra step of not just saying that gun laws should not only reduce gun violence, but also all crime, making everywhere like the Andy Griffith Show’s idyllic town of Mayberry. That paints the solution as either being all encompassing for all crime or not effective at all. Which just isn’t how the world works, sadly enough. No solution posed by any side of the issue would satisfy that requirement.    

3 – The Second Amendment makes women more equal than the entire feminist movement.

A very big, ambiguous claim here. There’s not necessarily a logical fallacy here, but that’s mainly because there is no “how” to this statement (non sequitur). So I’m forced to input my own guess about where they were going with this one and offer a counterpoint. 

I am assuming the claim here has to based around physical differences between the average man and the average woman, building off of the “guns are the great equalizer” feeling from some other points and outside experience with these kinds of arguments. This is problematic as it only looks at average physicality and, by extension of what guns are made for, violence in one direction or another as the main factors for all equality. This discounts more real-world opportunities like having a say in how governments are run, what careers any one person wants to pursue, running for office, receiving equal pay for equal work, etc. The statement boils everyone down to prehistoric days where might makes right instead of the tenants of civilization and culture and social order.

Using the Constitution as our guide and not looking at any of the other accomplishments of feminism in the United States to match the original claim, I would say that the 19th Amendment does a far sight more than the Second for women’s equality. Having their voice be heard via the right to vote opened up a new social realm for women in America. Before the 19th, there were 144 years of decision making that were relegated to men only based on antiquated, sexist beliefs. By final securing the right to vote, suffragists and early feminists made it possible for half a nation to finally have a say in how they are governed. Not as flashy as an armed mob, but much more sustainable.   

4 – Legal gun owners have 300 million guns and probably a trillion rounds of ammo. Seriously, folks, if we were the problem, you’d know it.

This is the Anecdote running in fine form. This claim tries to dismiss the problem because it could be so much worse. The fact that every legal gun owner doesn’t engage in gun violence doesn’t mean that there aren’t both extreme and mundane examples where legal gun ownership has paved the way for gun violence, often in ways that make the US a statistical outlier to the rest of the world. Due to that fact, it is worth looking into those cases and causes to try and prevent them.

This also sets a vaguely open threat to the potential violence the gun owners of America could do if they band together. I’d say that’s a stretch based on this one point, but it comes up again in #9, so it’s worth pointing out now.  

5 – When JFK was killed, nobody blamed the rifle.

This statement, as support for guns, is flawed in three angles. One is that it is a non sequitur that doesn’t really say anything about any issue. It instead falls into the Declinism cognitive bias by seeming to imply that in past national tragedies that no one overreacts like they do now. This is targeted, like the entire meme, to a certain generation (see the Mayberry reference above and Millennial bashing later). The general sense is that “our” people would never blame the guns. Which brings up the final problem with this statement, Begging the Question of whether or not proponents of stricter gun control are actually blaming the guns, or if that is in fact a bad thing or not. 

6 – The NRA murders 0 people and receives $0 in government funds. Planned Parenthood kills 350,000 babies every year and receives $500,000,000 in tax dollars annually. 

A bit of a non sequitur here, thought it could be a proposition to fund the NRA like we fund Planned Parenthood. As with most things in this meme, it is unclear. What is clear, however, is the Appeal to Emotion. The issue of abortion is an entirely seperate one (so this is also a bit of a Red Herring), so we won’t look into the many different ramifications, fact-checks or other points here. 

In a case for logical thinking, there should be no appeals to emotion. Logical arguments leave emotion at the door because it leads to other fallacies. Such as the False Equivalency between the two organizations, what they do, what they receive funding and tax breaks for, etc. etc. etc. This is inserted to simply praise and perhaps illicit sympathy for the NRA while demonizing Planned Parenthood, blatently pandering to the target audience for this piece (pro-gun, likely republican, likely anti-abortion). Either way, there’s nothing of substance there that adds to an argument as there’s no argument stated.  

7 – I have no problem with vigorous background checks when it comes to firearms. While we’re at it, let’s do the same when it comes to immigration, Voter I.D., and Candidates running for office. Also for welfare recipients. (sic)

This is a case of Red Herrings again. I fully support the statement (even if the NRA, who is looked at seemingly favorably in the meme, doesn’t), but the rest bring up other key social issues for the intended base that aren’t actually related to the main topic of gun control. There are points to be discussed for each one of them, but they have no place in a discussion or debate about gun control or gun violence, logically speaking. 

8 – You don’t need a fire alarm; that’s what the fire department is for. Now… if you think that sounds stupid, you know how I feel when you say I don’t need a gun.

This claim brings back our friend the False Equivalency and Begging the Question. The presupposition of this statement is that needing a fire alarm to alert the fire department of a fire is the same as needing a gun to protect oneself rather than relying on the police. Not only do the two scenarios differ wildly, they also don’t follow the same path or take into account the same variables. It assumes that all private citizens have fire alarms directly linked to the fire department (distinct from smoke detectors, which are passive) and doesn’t compare taking action into one’s own hands. 

A more direct link would be assuming that having a fire extinguisher and water hose and choosing to fight a fire oneself, rather than call the fire department, is analogous to using a firearm to protect oneself instead of the police. At least there is some room for comparison in that case (i.e. its still a good idea to have a fire extinguisher because it lets your protect yourself while waiting on the fire department). 

That is just where it steers wrong in its premise. We could still dive more deeply into home fire statistics versus home violence statistics, deaths caused by guns in the home vs fire extinguishers, etc., but the correlation difference between a fire alarm and a gun are wide enough when just looking at the logic of the argument. 

9 – Folks keep talking about another Civil War. One side knows how to shoot and has a trillion bullets. The other side has crying closets and is confused about which bathroom to use. How do you think that’s going to end?

This final point is an interesting one. First, is there talk about another Civil War? I don’t think that presupposition is actually true, outside of certain news outlets. Second, this isn’t so much a point against gun control, but instead paints legal gun owners as ready and willing to kill others over gun rights issues. The common defense to this line of thinking is “I didn’t mean that, I meant something else” without actually describing what that something else is. But the implication is pretty clear and one directional here. It also brings back in the tribalism of previous points by singling out “crying closets” and trans bathroom use, two issues hoisted as examples of crazy, over sensitive Millennials in more right wing media. Again, there’s a lot of discussion to be had about those topics, but this is more of an Ad Hominem attack against a group that is typically for more gun laws and restrictions.  

Beyond that, how does the veiled threat of possible group violence, singling out proponents of stricter gun laws, really make the case that gun laws should be more lax? It undermines any previous build-up of gun owners being mostly reasonable and nonthreatening by essentially saying that in the event of a standoff, their side would massacre the other. It backtracks on its own claims and leaves the final thought that all gun owners are on board with the meme and will stand as one against any threat to the group.

***

All in all, not many solid or logical arguments in a piece that is Borrowing Authority about logic by using an image of Albert Einstein. This is typical of anything posted to social media sites by any side of any issue. Which is really the underlying rub with all of this. Posting or sharing pithy memes doesn’t do anything to further any side. At best it pushes you further into tribalism and make you and others who share your point of view feel good. But those good feelings come at the cost of seeming to not really have a grasp on what you are talking about when you really dig into the issues. Boiled down talking points then become the only basis for your thoughts and opinions, which then becomes a recursive whole when trying to engage anyone with deeper thought on an issue. 

There’s plenty to talk about when looking at issues like gun legislation and possible restrictions. But it isn’t accomplished through memes or 280 characters or chat room echo chambers. There is nuance and details to uncover, weighing mechanisms to consider… Structure and order to follow that ensures both sides are actually getting to the heart of the matter. So the best practice is to represent yourself when making a point close to your heart. Or, if you must borrow a point from elsewhere, do your best to vet it and check it for fallacies yourself. Those are the only ways to be sure you won’t be misrepresented or be swept up in emotional appeals that don’t actually move your side forward. Because the above is just one of countless examples of easily shareable but logically flawed pieces of meme floating around any issue and side you can name. The only way to stem the tide of shoddy arguments and fruitless back and forths is to hold the information we share and ourselves to a higher standard. 

Please, don’t pass this meme on.