Logical Appeals of Gun Rights

The website “The Truth About Guns” is an organization that advocates for the rights of citizens to purchase and own a gun. This organization heavily opposes gun control and has strong political support around the United States. The website is formatted such that it conveys arguments in favor of gun rights through multiple different articles written by different people. They put out 15 articles every single day and from a quick glance, all of them seem to be in favor of gun rights and/or in opposition to gun control. It also seems to me that these articles are new articles written for this website specifically, although that could be wrong. All things considered, this is basically an organization that strongly supports gun rights, strongly opposes gun control, and is very committed to the cause.

Much like other gun rights advocacy websites, it seems kind of difficult to find much logos. That isn’t meant to insult the position of being pro-gun (well…maybe a little), but I think that because their position is likely to maintain the status quo, more or less, there is not much change they are advocating for. Rather, they are advocating against listening to advocacies for gun control.

From a few articles, I think I understand an idea of what kind of logos they use. One use of logos that “The Truth About Guns” uses is the argument that guns do not increase the degree of violence in this country and instead, often do the opposite. Their arguments for this rely on specific examples of times where someone was able to defend themselves using a gun. Their most recent example is about someone who was able to avoid being robbed due to possessing a gun. “The Truth About Guns” argues that the reality in which guns help people is alive. In fact, on their “Facts About Guns” page, they link an article that they say is the best article for understanding the facts revolving guns. In this article, they argue that guns do not increase violence because over the past decade, gun violence have been consistently on the decline when gun sales have increased.

“The Truth About America” also argues that the government and the left are trying to take away rights from the people. As supposedly established in the last paragraph, gun rights do not increase gun violence and they often deter or prevent it, “The Truth About America” argues that having a gun should be considered a right as it is beneficial for survival. The most recent article talking about the government and the left trying to take away people’s rights discussed “red flag” laws. They took the position that such legislation is the theft of freedom and demonstrates that the government is attempting to take away people’s liberties. As liberties should be protected, gun rights should be too.

A third point of contention for “The Truth About Guns” is the idea that guns are just inherently beneficial. While this organization already sees possession of guns as an unconditional right that is beneficial for the decline of gun violence, they have not really tackled whether or not guns are entirely beneficial. They suggest that the United States is not in a gun epidemic as many claim it is. They point out evidence that shows that the likelihood of getting killed by a gun is far lesser than the likelihood of getting killed by traffic or accidental poisoning. In addition, they argue that guns are beneficial for the safety of schools as it can help prevent a school shooter from having their way.

I have a couple problems with all these three arguments. The first argument is problematic because it uses correlation to prove causation. As the evidence they cite is supposedly the best evidence in their eyes about guns, we should uphold it to the highest standard. The best that their “best evidence” can prove is that there is a correlation between gun sales and decreased gun violence. However, that claim itself would even be a stretch to make as gun violence has been decreasing, according to their own very evidence, regardless of whether or not gun sales increase. To truly be scientific, “The Truth About Guns” would need to acknowledge that the decreased violence cannot be attributed to gun sales and is likely caused by other factors.

I also think their second argument is fallacious because they do not prove what constitutes a right or a liberty. Personally, I do not view the ability to injure or kill someone as a right. They also cannot argue that self-defense is necessary because there are many other means of self-defense that do not include guns and can be extremely effective. If they are going to argue in favor of guns, they should at least acknowledge that it should not be considered a right; it should be considered a privilege if anything. Also, they seem to only be arguing that the left and the government are trying to take away people’s rights for the sake of creating a group to antagonize that followers can get behind, strengthening their initiative through manipulative means.

Their third argument is problematic because it is insufficient. I can get behind the idea that if guns are beneficial, they should be valued. However, I simply do not think “The Truth About Guns” takes into account all variables. Even if there is a 52 times higher likelihood of getting killed by traffic, that is still barely higher as both percentages are fairly low. Additionally, it does prove that guns should be valued or are beneficial. Of course transportation should be valued as it provides immense benefit but such benefit is not proven to be true for guns by them. Also, they argue that guns are beneficial for school but when giving it a closer look, they really are only arguing that teachers with guns are more effective against school shooters than teachers without guns. They do not account for the increased likelihood of a school shooting happening due to the teachers possessing guns nor do they account for the psychological change teachers could experience.

Overall, I do not like this organization.

Mandating Critical Thinking in Curricula

Proposal: A critical thinking class revolved around abstract thinking should be mandated in education at all levels starting in middle school.

Ever since the mid-20th century, critical thinking has lost its place in education and has been replaced with a far less mind-enhancing and motivating engagement: memorization. This can be attributed to the fact that in the 20th century, the economy switched from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. As a result, the labor that was available became increasingly more skill-based. Because a lot of these skills were not easily attainable, people went to college in order to gain skills for the purpose of obtaining jobs in the economy for monetary gain. This affects lower levels of education too as those levels of education are almost entirely necessary for college. In other words, the focus of education, at every level, has shifted from valuing learning to valuing money. Schools have become businesses rather than institutions of learning (Morse).

Breslin of The Huffington Post explains, “The essence of an education – the ability to think critically and protect oneself from falsehood and lies – may once have been taught in American schools, but, with few exceptions, is today a lost art” (Breslin). He warrants this explanation by arguing that there is no part of the curriculum that emphasizes critical thinking or even upholds it as a value that is necessary to be taught (Breslin). In fact, he says that despite teachers wanting to teach and encourage critical thinking, the educational structure and system ignores it due to the amount of content they promote students to memorize (Breslin).

Not only did capitalism cause this issue but the federal government, at the very highest level, played an integral part in the deterioration of critical thinking in education. An author, Joe David, wrote in the Observer that NCLB, Common Core, Race to the Top, and Goals 2000 all willingly sacrificed critical thinking for the purpose of increasing standardized test scores.

Many would argue that this service economy cannot be replaced and to some extent, I would agree. That does not mean, however, that people should be complacent in the prioritization of memorization over critical thinking. For this reason, I propose that critical thinking be mandated in curriculum.

This seems like an overly broad proposal so I think it is important to figure out what severely mandating critical thinking in curriculum would look like. I think the biggest way in which critical thinking separates itself from memorization is through abstract contemplation. Someone could argue that math, in a way, is memorization because even if it takes deduction and analysis, it is done so in a systematic way that can be easily mastered if memorized. However, one could not easily argue that practicing philosophy is memorization as part of its very nature is to question everything. For this reason, I more specifically propose that a philosophy or “abstract thinking” class be required at all levels of education starting in middle school. Rather than simply teaching the history of philosophy and different theories that have already been proposed and established (which is valuable and important to education), these classes should focus more on thinking itself. Through this, people can engage with learning better, progress their intelligence, and be motivated to form opinions about the world and the things around them that they care and can be challenged about.

Research Questions:

What constitutes critical thinking?

Why is critical thinking important?

Should education exist for the purpose of jobs or learning? If both, which should be prioritized?

How does a system balance between supporting critical thinking while passing down the knowledge that has already been discovered?

Resources

Breslin, Frank. “Why Public Schools Don’t Teach Critical Thinking — Part 1.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 7 Aug. 2016, www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-breslin/why-public-schools-dont-t_b_7956518.html.

Morse, Ben. “Why Critical Thinking Is Overlooked by Schools and Shunned by Students.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 12 Sept. 2012, www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2012/sep/12/critical-thinking-overlooked-in-secondary-education.

David, Joe, and Joe David. “How the American Education System Suppresses Critical Thinking.” Observer, Observer, 11 Jan. 2018, observer.com/2018/01/american-education-system-suppresses-critical-thinking/.