In his Wednesday, August 29, 2018 opinion column, Steve Frey once again insults some of his readers, this time by implying that if they don’t agree with him, or vote for candidates that agree with him, that they somehow “could care less” about those killed with guns.
This is a subtle action. Although not actually calling people heartless, Mr. Frey’s message is clear: if you don’t agree with him, you “don’t care.”
It is a wholesale insulting and attempted moral shaming of those with whom he disagrees.
There are numerous reasons some people might disagree with Mr. Frey that have nothing to do with being heartless.
Perhaps the editor will allow a pro-2nd Amendment expert half a news page (as Mr. Frey had) to offer such evidence in rebuttal?
There are enough studies and counter examples to allow the two sides to clash so a robust discussion can be had.
Regardless, by impugning the character of those with whom he disagrees, Mr. Frey stops discussion through another fallacy, an ad hominem attack.
He calls into question their character instead of focusing on the quality of their arguments. It never occurs to him that good hearted and law-abiding citizens who support 2nd Amendment civil rights, who support the fundamental human right to self-defense, aren’t bad people because they disagree with him.
Mr. Frey also engages in the classic fallacy of question begging by advancing questionable gun control policy (or anti-2nd Amendment policy to others) with his policy assertions.
He simply, without evidence, advances his solutions as true, and only those who “don’t care” would be against them. It is his way or the highway.
Mr. Frey would do well to remember that good people can disagree about public policy. He would also do well to take a step back from his positions and consider that his way is not necessarily the best way for stopping violence committed with firearms.
Obviously, even as he refuses to acknowledge it, there are good and intelligent people who thoughtfully disagree with him, and to dismiss their opinions and conclusions as “not caring,” does not invite public civil discussion, it shuts it down.
What Mr. Frey offers as “common sense” solutions, others see as an assault on their 2nd Amendment civil rights.
To them, common sense might be to go after the root causes of increasingly violent public behavior, not diminish or further restrict a Constitutional right.
Understanding and respecting these differences is the first step toward healthy, civil and productive policy debate.
Jim Kuypers,
Christiansburg
