The main argument in the editorial is that some people are complaining that there are not enough laws to restrict the selling of guns to people. These columnists just take one bead egg and exploit it and make a case about it and imply it to the entire gun industry when there are just a few bad apples as there is in any other industry.
Some of the claims and allegations presented are:
This is one of the 238 weapons that seemed to have been stolen or missing by gun dealer Brian Borgelt. (Appeal to Ridicule)
Br. Borgelt has repeatedly failed to track sales and inventory and to properly file background checks on purchasers. (Appeal to Ridicule)
After the sniper attacks the government revoked his FFL license. (AD Baculum)
Mr. Borgelt then sold his shop to his friend and is still quite involved in the business.
A Federal study in 2001 showed that three out of five guns used by criminals to less than 2 percent of federally licensed gun shops. (Bias in Sampling)
The columnist claims that since after the shootings gun dealers are if anything worse than before. (Bias in Sampling)
The columnist also implies that Congress is too afraid to take on the gun lobby. (False Dilemma)
The columnist also believes that legislation in congress affecting gun control would just further weaken the powers of federal enforcement agents to conduct dealer audits and that it is almost impossible for federal agents to crack down on these shops because of all the red tape involved. (False Dilemma)
It can take years to close a gun shop because of strict laws. (False Dilemma)
Claims congress just passed laws after the shootings to protect the gun industry from civil law suits. (False Dilemma)
These facts are very easy to write when there is no physical proof and or no citing of the sources in which this columnist has found this information from.
No comments:
Post a Comment