- Joined
- Mar 27, 2014
- Messages
- 63,651
- Reaction score
- 33,699
- Location
- Tennessee
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
For you to demonstrate a lack of consistency in the 2nd amendment defenders you would have to find some incidents where they are clamoring for control and others where they are not. I think your comparative analogy fails miserably.
Your 2nd amendment argument actually more accurately describes the same types that are offering the pretense of care about this incident. Why is it they ignore the day to day gun violence and only lose their mind when the victim is a cute little pink child and/or the perpetrator is a white male?
I can't speak for all the 2nd amendment types but I can tell you that I personally have consistently called for responsible gun ownership in every situation and increased penalties on everyone using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime. You want to try to play the snarky gotcha game, feel free to point out inconsistency in anything I have written regarding gun ownership. Good luck and have more fun than you can stand.
Obviously it was just an example to illustrate that your point was illogical. Maybe this will clear it up:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Your Logical Fallacy is ad hominem
You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.