In programming, a failed cyclic redundancy check causes a logic failure. You can replicate this in any spreadsheet program. Add a formula to a cell in a spreadsheet that says that cell A1 = cell B1. Now add another formula that says that cell B1 = cell A1. The program will throw an error message saying that you have a circular reference error. This is an oversimplification of a failed cyclic redundancy check, but the principal is the same.
I was recently engaged in a discussion about gun rights with a friend of a friend on Facebook. I know, I know, it sounds like “My best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with the girl…” Anyway, at one point a circular logic argument was brought up by this individual and I will admit I lost my cool just due to the sheer stupidity of the argument.
His argument was that in gun free zones, no armed civilian (note not law enforcement, or resource officer etc.) has ever managed to stop an active shooter incident. He completely failed to see that his argument defeated itself.
Let me present an analogy. In the state of Nevada, a state run lottery is illegal. His argument is that because no one has ever won the Nevada state lottery, the Nevada state lottery should be illegal.
The reason for the “gun free zone” discrepancy he cited, is the fact that it is a gun free zone. A law abiding citizen, won’t go into a gun free zone while armed. See the problem? His argument ran counter to his own argument. Failed cyclic redundancy check. And I was trying to convince this idiot that banning, restricting, or otherwise limiting gun rights would do absolutely nothing to curb violence. He of course kept posting articles from salon.com, or motherjones.com in order to bolster his arguments. Both of these editorial sites on the internet have been roundly trounced for fabricating truth, manufacturing facts out of whole cloth, and massaging statistics in such a way that they have the same journalistic integrity as the Weekly World News. (“Headline: Woman Gives Birth to Gay Alien Vampire Baboon!”) Once in a while he did post from a less biased source. I simply pointed out to him that in the articles he posted, they countered themselves, making the whole point of the article moot.
When you look at the facts, and leave the emotional “but the children!” arguments out, you’ll notice something. Banning guns does more to allow children to be harmed than allowing us to own guns. Those that are arguing for gun control don’t actually give a damn about any children, and just want to scream that because you own guns you are a heartless individual and should be shot. (Another common theme among those that want to ban guns, is that they want to apply violence to those of us who own guns, even though we harbor them no ill will at all.)
So if you are going to argue in favor of banning guns, it might not be a bad idea to have some facts to back up your argument. Not opinion, not speculation, and not emotion, but actual solid facts. You’ll be hard pressed to find any that support your argument for banning guns that haven’t been heavily manipulated, massaged, or outright fake because they don’t exist.