articulate-response-blog - Tumblr blog

[articulate-response-blog]

#NotAllX

This is a break from the usual format of a response to an article; rather here I’ll be articulating some of my thoughts about the idea around the hashtag #NotAllX. Of course, X in this case stands for Men or White People, as in the hashtags #NotAllMen and #NotAllWhitePeople. Interestingly, X isn’t normally replaced with anything else, except "men” and “white people”. I don’t “use” the tag myself, but it’s come to stand for (and become a straw man of) a particular argument.

I can’t speak to the motivations behind all users of the tag, but as a white male, the gist of it is something I have felt deeply before: why do you need to frame your statement with the idea that all men or all white people benefit or are responsible for whatever the topic of the day is?

I mostly see these kinds of generalizing statements on Twitter, which means that arguing against their rhetoric is hard in 140 characters. Luckily, a twitter user with the handle @AdrianCJax has a thread wherein they offer an explanation:

Imagine 13 kids (weird number, i know, but it’ll make sense soon enough): 10 of them wear white t-shirts, 3 of them, brown tees.

Everyday, the “white tee kids” get to leave class early to attend lunch ahead of everyone else, the “brown tee” kids follow afterwards.

Unfortunately, like clockwork, the 3 brown tee kids are bullied by 6 of the 10 white tee kids waiting for them & steal their lunch money.

Ok, hold on, I was with you before. My issue with this explanation is that it uses a generalization- the idea that a majority of white people are bringing physical violence to blacks- in an attempt to dismiss arguments against generalization (the #NotAllX hashtag). 

I’m assuming that most people who have an issue with generalization and “use” the tag are people who aren’t exposed to the racism or sexism that is experienced by POC and women. Let me be clear here: I’m using exposed to mean “see and witness discrimination firsthand,” rather than “targeted or effected by such discrimination.” I understand that institutional discrimination, sexism, misogyny, et. al, exist, but in my lifetime, I have not been a witness to these forces playing out in front of me.

Further, I understand that this is the idea of “white male gaze”- as a white male, I most likely will not and can not understand the world in these terms of discrimination, only through my own privilege. That’s why I think it’s important for arguments dismissing concerns of generalization- like @AdrianCJax’s above- to couch their points in terms outside of overtly obvious experiences of this discrimination. For me, it’s hard to believe that generalization is warranted when you’re telling me that a majority of “whites” in this scenario are bringing physical violence to “blacks”- even if that is true, it’s not something I can really internalize as a given for this example. As @AdrianCJax goes on to say, “if you are white and/or male, you know absolutely nothing about these issues...”

So, naturally, the brown tee kids are upset and alert the teacher: “Hey, those white tee kids keep stealing our lunch money every day!”

Now, the other 4 white tee kids who aren’t bullies- in fact, they dislike the 6 white tee bullies- are upset at what they hear... BUT...

they target their frustration not towards the bullies... but at the brown tee kids: “Hey, hey, hey... Not ALL white tee kids stole your money!”

And the pattern continues: 6 white tees bullied 3 browns... the brown tees address their frustration... the 4 white tees snap at brown tees.

I’ll interject here to say that I disagree with the idea that #NotAllX users are targeting their frustrations towards the victims and doing nothing otherwise. We are frustrated that, even if we were to completely align with your view and work with you, we would still be labeled as aggressors. Our frustrations work both ways; we are angry that the other white tee shirt kids are taking advantage of you, and we’re also angry that you don’t seem to care that we are working with you. 

Now, if one had an ounce of empathy, you would ask yourself, “Wait... if 4 of the white tee kids hate bullying, why snap at the victims?...”

”...Obviously, the 6 bullies are gonna continue stealing the brown tee kids’ lunch money until someone intervenes and helps.”

I’ll reiterate: this argument misses the mark because it tries to dismiss concerns of generalization with generalizations. Furthermore, this is a loaded example: OBVIOUSLY, the 6 white tee shirt kids who are bullying the brown shirt kids are at fault. OBVIOUSLY, the 4 white tee shirt kids need to start helping the brown shirt kids. But the situations where generalization is unfairly applied aren’t that simple, aren’t loaded, and generalization is almost never applied in this fashion. 

For example, a tweet I saw today read: “Lmfaooo white men are so committed to racism that they will stab themselves,” referencing a news article about a man stabbing himself despite claiming that he was stabbed due to his “neo-nazi haircut.” 

Ok, so who are the white and brown shirt kids in this instance? If I say “not all white men are committed to racism,” then are you seriously going to tell me that “well 6 out of 10 white men are committed to racism and so the other four of you should be trying to help” when the article is specifically about one crazy white man who stabbed himself? 

So what if we reverse the roles, and examine this example from another perspective? If I simply wrote “POC men are so committed to the idea of racism that they stab themselves,” implying that the man stabbed himself in order to claim that he was stabbed by a neo-nazi, would it be fair to generalize POC men for their non-existent commitment to racism?

“Surely not,” one might say, “racism isn’t about prejudice towards a race, it’s about being disadvantaged by societal institutions. This POC is disadvantaged by society’s institutions and so even if he stabs himself in order to further a false idea, he can’t be racist.” This is just an extension of the “POC can’t be racist” and “women can’t be sexist” argument. These arguments rely on differing definitions of what racism and sexism mean, which isn’t really helpful at all.

The author of the tweet above goes on to say: 

For the not all group : Men MEANS plural form of man. meaning MORE THAN ONE MAN. Not ALL MEN. Any group with more than one man = MEN.

Yes, this is a correct summary of plurals in the English language. But, once again, the story is about “ONE MAN” who stabbed himself, not “MEN.” So why use “men?”

Also:’ If you are a white person who isn’t stopping other WP? You should be generalized. Because YOU benefit from the harm that other WHITE PPL DO.

Again, this feels more like a rebuttal of the idea that “white men are so committed to racism that they will stab themselves.” How am I supposed to stop one white man from stabbing himself? What harm is he doing by being an idiot and stabbing himself? Furthermore, this is a non sequitur: the author says that whites who aren’t allies should be generalized, because they benefit from the harm. But surely whites who are allies would benefit from the harm as well? There is no boundary for whom this harm will benefit within “white people” as a group. And so all whites, even allies, end up getting generalized anyways.

The idea that whites and men need to step up and “stop” others from perpetuating discrimination and harm against minorities is a legitimate one, and so is the idea that those same people benefit from the harm that those others are doing. But neither of these ideas work in favor of generalization. Separating the two groups is crucial to the general understanding that progress is being made. 

The fact that @AdrianCJax had to write a thread explaining the issues with #NotAllX perfectly summarizes the issue with generalization. Generalization tells whites and men that their contributions don’t matter; they’ll be considered as aggressors and the enemy no matter what. @AdrianCJax’s thread further tells whites and men that there’s no guarantee they won’t be generalized, but in order to help minorities they should “shut up, listen, and align.” Or, in other words, they should contribute. Which, as generalization tells them, doesn’t actually matter. They’ll be generalized anyways.

Generalization isn’t a call to action for whites or men, it’s just a way to put them down and it encourages polarization and tribalism. 

[articulate-response-blog]

“I Think 'Dunkirk' Was Mediocre at Best, and It's Not Because I'm Some Naive Woman Who Doesn't Get It”

The offending article in question: http://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/news/a28515/dunkirk-movie-review/ by Mehera Bonner

I am a white man. I take issue with Bonner’s article not because I hate “SJWs” or “Feminazis,” but because this article stylizes itself as a movie review and instead uses most of its space to tear down strawmen and generally be misandrist.

misandry: noun; dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men

Let’s look at the text of the article itself:

“That movie was fucking bomb." That was one reaction I overheard after watching Dunkirk, Christopher Nolan's new directorial gift to men, who are currently spending their time fervently ranking his movies, arguing about said rankings, and—presumably—wearing fedoras completely un-ironically. Or even worse, ironically.

Bonner begins with a thesis of sorts: Dunkirk is a “directorial gift to men,” and men who enjoy his movies like to wear fedoras, presumably because they are stupid. 

However, as we will see, Bonner does not fully support her thesis. She does bring up some valid criticism of the movie, but the article seems to devolve into repeating the same language found in this first paragraph without explaining her points. I’m not saying she needs to provide “data and statistics” for her movie review. Movie reviews are subjective. She needs to explain why Dunkirk is a “directorial gift to men,” and, if possible, why men are stupid and like to wear fedoras.

Obviously she doesn’t outright state that men are stupid here (that comes later), but for Bonner, the fedora is a synecdoche for the stereotype of a “neckbeard”: a white, fat, fedora-wearing man, who generally holds sexist beliefs and attitudes, while at the same time complaining and loudly wondering why they are not socially popular. The neckbeard is a strawman- but it’s not even clear what should be in place of the strawman. For no better reason, Bonner seems to mention men if only because Dunkirk is generally about a war populated heavily by men. There are no neckbeards in Dunkirk. 

If Bonner wanted to address the societal implications of Dunkirk, or explain how the heated anti-woman and anti-minority atmosphere of the current day played into her opinion of Dunkirk, I would be fine with that. In fact, I wouldn’t be writing this at all. I don’t think movies or any other art need to be divorced from the society in which they were made to be able to judge them fairly. But Bonner doesn’t do that. She just attacks “pretentious men” who “would love nothing more than to explain to [Bonner] why [she’s] wrong about not liking it.”

There are points about the film in this article:

The thing is, I just don't think Dunkirk is a very good movie—if your definition of the word movie is "moving images held together by a plot." Like, yes: Dunkirk is very well-made. I felt like I was going to vomit during it, because that's how intense it was. And if your interests include riding a visual roller coaster called war, you will love it. But if you're a fan of films with plots, Dunkirk doesn't play that game. It's as if Christopher Nolan (sorry, "Nolan") plucked out the war scene from a script, and was like "let's just make this part extra long and call it a movie, lol."

Here Bonner notes that she believes the film is well-made, but criticizes the overall plot structure of Dunkirk- something which has been divisive. Some critics like the structure, others don’t. I wonder what part of Dunkirk’s “plot” didn’t resonate with Bonner, but she doesn’t elaborate, instead choosing to mock “war movie fans,” “Christopher Nolan fans,” and Nolan himself.

The film, in case you aren't already aware due to the endless critical musings devoted to it, is about the real life battle of Dunkirk—where British and Allied troops were rescued by civilian boats and evacuated. It's a story worthy of being told and re-told, and I really enjoy war movies in general, but still—actual stuff needs to happen. Stuff other than scenes of men burning in oil-covered water, ships sinking, and bodies drowning. If you want to argue that the non-stop violent intensity of the film was the point, and that we should feel fully immersed in the war like we're living it ourselves—I present Harry Styles.

I would disagree with her that what is pictured in Dunkirk isn’t “actual stuff.” I’m not sure what she means by “actual stuff,” again, because she doesn’t elaborate, but she does bring up a good point about Harry Styles:

The One Direction band member did a surprisingly impressive job in what turned out to be a pretty major role, but I refuse to believe it's possible for any viewer with even a semblance of pop-culture knowledge not see him and immediately go "OMG, it's Harry Styles."

I think this is an interesting point. I haven’t seen it mentioned by any other critics and it is definetly something I would agree with Bonner about. Seeing Styles in the movie distracted me from the overall tone (the “violent intensity” that Bonner mentioned earlier), and made me focus more on his performance.

Much like Ed Sheeran's cameo in Game of Thrones, having a pop star casually show up in a film will inevitably remove the audience from the narrative and ground them back in reality. Harry Styles is a constant reminder to the viewer that the movie isn't real, while the entire excuse for the film's intense and admittedly-impressive cinematography is to convince the viewer that they're right there in it. You can't have your Harry Styles cake and eat it too.

Yup. 

But my main issue with Dunkirk is that it's so clearly designed for men to man-out over.

Unfortunately, here we veer off the rails and return to Bonner’s “thesis.”

And look, it's not like I need every movie to have "strong female leads." Wonder Woman can probably tide me over for at least a year, and I understand that this war was dominated by brave male soldiers. I get that.

A prevailing theme in this article is language that suggests Bonner needs to justify her criticisms even before she makes them, especially in regards to the “directorial gift to men” argument.

Let’s watch how Bonner begins to make a point about the film, but instead replaces it with misandry:

But the packaging of the film, the general vibe, and the tenor of the people applauding it just screams "men-only"

Ok, how?

—and specifically seems to cater to a certain type of very pretentious man who would love nothing more than to explain to me why I'm wrong about not liking it. If this movie were a dating profile pic, it would be a swole guy at the gym who also goes to Harvard. If it was a drink it would be Stumptown coffee. If it was one of your friends, it would be the one who starts his sentences with "I get what you're saying, but..."

Oh.

I guess congratulations are in order for Nolan managing to unite high-brow male critics and very annoying people on Twitter under a common bromance, but to me, Dunkirk felt like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness—which apparently they don't get to do enough.

Oh.

I might as well ask again- how did the packaging and general vibe promote this idea of “men-only?” How does Dunkirk feel like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness? Why are the men (and only men) who like Dunkirk, douche bros? 

Bonner does not go on to explain.

Fine, great, go forth, but if Nolan's entire purpose is breaking the established war movie mold and doing something different—why not make a movie about women in World War II? Or—because I know that will illicit cries of "ugh, not everything has to be about feminism, ugh!"—how about any other marginalized group?

Because that’s not Nolan’s idea of “breaking the established war movie mold.” In Nolan’s other films, he focuses heavily on non-linear plots, among other things. Bringing that conception of plot to war movies does break the war movie mold. Taking out “men” and slotting in “women or other marginalized groups” to make a war movie does not break the war movie mold.

These stories shouldn't be relegated to indie films and Oscar season. It's up to giant powerhouse directors like Nolan to tell them, which is why Dunkirk feels so basic.

Here is a list of 10 films about women in wartime, by the British Film Institute. Here is Red Tails, a movie about the (all-black) Tuskegee Airmen, released in late January 2012 (after Oscar season), with a budget of 58 million dollars.

I agree there is a shortage of movies about the experiences of women and minorities in all time periods, but to charge Nolan with creating a movie that was “an excuse for men to celebrate maleness” because he didn’t focus on who Bonner wanted him to is ridiculous. 

It's a summer war movie. It'll make you fear for the future and pray that we never fight again. You might get kind of sick. If you're like me, a random man will come up to you after and explain why you're wrong for disliking it. But this war movie isn't special. At the end of the day, it's like all the rest of them.

As a side point, I’m not sure how a random man could come up to you and explain why you’re wrong for disliking it- how would this random man know you disliked it?

Bonner’s conclusion, and article overall, is very weak. It spent some time discussing the movie, but also spent more time leveling ridiculous attacks at people who like the movie, mostly because they are men. 

I’m conflicted, however, because I can somewhat see the reasoning underpinning Bonner’s complaints about “pretentious men.” There has always been a culture of male eliteness in filmmaking, and especially in film criticism, and for a movie like Dunkirk, helmed by one of the most successful directors in the world, it’s not surprising that such a culture would be on display. But none of Bonner’s article seems to be addressing that culture, and Bonner doesn’t handle the subject with any seriousness. 

The article comes off as a way to bait other critics, especially male ones, into a session of “well you’re sexist because you can’t handle my opinion. har har isn’t the male ego so fragile?”

But what do I know? I’m a man, after all.

[articulate-response-blog]

"Defending Abortion Of Zika Babies Proves Trevor Noah’s A Coward"

The offending article: http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/12/defending-abortion-of-zika-babies-proves-trevor-noahs-a-coward/

“Trevor Noah is showing his stupid again by wishing “a giant mosquito would f–k [Marco] Rubio and leave him pregnant with a Zika baby” after the senator said women infected with the Zika virus shouldn’t abort their babies.”

I’ll be honest: I don’t like this joke. It’s stupid and crude. For some people, that’s okay, but for me, I think there are plenty of other things to harp on Marco Rubio for, and so saying that you hope a giant mosquito would impregnate him is a bit silly. But let’s move on.

Now, I’ll warn you: I’m pro-choice. I think that’s the logical answer to this question. But abortion is a messy area and there is plenty of other crap in this article to respond to than just the grey parts of the ethics of abortion. So here we are.

“First of all, Noah’s right: mosquitoes aren’t the only thing that suck. His show sucks, and he sucks. His jokes are lame, unoriginal, and downright stupid. This is just one more example.”

Glad you’re focused on the point, Ms. McAllister.

“He’s trying to make the point that men and women are so different that one can’t tell the other what to do with their own bodies, yet he fails to see that regarding babies’ bodies, men do have a right to speak (and pass laws).”

You’re correct. Men do have the right to speak about babies (or fetuses, rather). We can even pass laws. However you’re creating a false dilemma. We can be biologically different and have intelligent and respectful conversations about pregnancy.

Noah’s comparison is apt: men and women are very biologically different. Men don’t have to deal with having baby human organisms growing in them. In the same way that we should listen to other races and sexualities about their experiences, we should do the same for women and pregnancy.

“The baby inside the woman—a separate, yet dependent, entity from the mother—is equally part of the man and the woman.”

Okay, hold up. This is a false equivocation: a man’s contribution of a gamete is in a different league from the woman actually carrying the baby to term. I don’t think it’s even up for debate who contributes more to a pregnancy.

“The man has just as much of a vested interest in that child as the woman. After all, without him, there would be no baby. It’s the baby’s body that is at issue here, not the mother’s, and the father shares that child with the mother.”

First of all, the man doesn’t always have a vested interest in the child. We all know this. Some fathers abandon their kids, some conceptions are accidents, etc. So just because a baby exists doesn’t mean that the father has a vested interest. Yes, he put a shovel in the backyard. But the mother now has to dig the hole for the pool.

Now the second part brings up the issue of the separation between the mother and the baby / fetus: when does the zygote become an actual person? There sure isn’t a fine biological line, other than conception and later birth.

Logically, I contend that the line should be birth. Society, and more importantly the government should begin treating the organism as a human once it has emerged from the womb. This is because all manner of things could happen to it in the womb, such as a miscarriage or preeclampsia. If we treat it as a person beforehand, the mother could be responsible for its “murder” due to a medical complication which was no fault of her own.

However I understand the argument that the fetus develops its higher mental functions later in the womb, so it could be considered more “alive”. So I’ll stick with whatever rule was adopted in Roe v. Wade.

“(Since Noah might not have studied genetics at any point in his life, this might help explain how human life begins.)”

Linked article was published on a website designed in 1995, mentions God a few times, is rife with grammatical and spelling errors, and contends that “A child completes the woman and she feels very happy after having a child.” It’s almost like postpartum depression isn’t a thing.

“Ironically, his comparison to blacks and sunscreen actually supports this general point of commonality. The fact is black people do wear sunscreen (30 percent of them), and all black people need it no matter the shade of their skin. Black, white, it doesn’t matter—we all need protection because skin can be damaged and, yes, black people get cancer too. In fact, blacks are more likely to die of melanoma than whites. ‘Yo, b. I hear what you’re sayin’. On second thought maybe I am pro-sunscreen!’”

Noah’s joke was pretty stupid so I didn’t include it above. But there is an issue with McAllister’s conjecture: blacks are more likely to die of melanoma because they can’t / don’t check for spots as thoroughly as whites do, because spots are harder to see on their skin. Some also don’t believe that they will get skin cancer. The melanoma in black skin does, in fact, help them protect against skin cancer otherwise.

“Of course, all that might just be too complex for someone like Noah, who is more concerned about pushing a liberal agenda than making good jokes rooted in truth (which are the best kind). But because he puts his ideology first, he fails as a comedian and comes across as a blabbering buffoon.”

Agree with the point about jokes, reject the rest because of ad hominems.

“Real Men Don’t Support Abortion”

Ok, hold on, fuck that. That’s a no true scotsman. Whatever comes next is going to be hilariously polarizing, attacking whoever isn’t “us.” Whoo boy.

“This is particularly evident when he talks about abortion and shows himself as merely a typical wimpified pro-choice beta male. His faux-chivalrous defense of women and their bodies is nauseating. I want to vomit every time I hear some pansy man who sold his balls to the feminist movement whine about respecting a woman’s right to choose death over life.”

I don’t know why I quoted this. There is no logic or facts here to debate with. It’s just all shit, all the time. Let’s fast forward back to the goddamn point…

“You’re a shining testimony of male strength by knocking up women then removing yourself from any responsibility and saying a woman should get an abortion if she wants. Very convenient for you.”

Surprise! Men can be advocates for the rights of women they haven’t had sex with!

Wait, so let me get this straight. A few paragraphs ago you’re contending that men and women have equal roles in pregnancy, and now it’s all the man’s fault. Just be consistent, please.

“A real man makes a stand to protect both women and children—and, yes, abortion is not good for women; in fact, it’s more dangerous than childbirth.”

The No True Scotsman is back. And the linked article is from “lifenews.com.” Nope, no possibility of bias there. Let’s find another, reputable source: UK’s NHS. This article emphasizes low risks for abortions, but higher risks when done later in pregnancy. That’s reasonable. Nothing about being more dangerous than childbirth.

“A real man commits to loving and caring for a child, even if that child comes into this world with a birth defect. Too many men today are all about having sex, but when it comes to the hard work of raising children, they’re MIA. Involve a child who has special needs, and he’s out the door faster than Planned Parenthood can hide profits from selling baby parts.”

Let’s be specific. McAllister targets the minority of men who accidentally conceive, conceive a fetus with birth defects, and then abandon the child. Not to mention that by her logic, the woman is equally responsible in the pregnancy. I shan’t attempt to respond to the hilarious inclusion of the baby part selling hoax.

“One of the most common arguments for abortion is “we don’t want to bring more children into the world where they have no one to care for them, and they’ll be raised in poverty” (as if poverty is worse than death).”

I see the point about poverty being worse than death.

“Well, that problem would be erased quickly if the men who impregnated the women in the first place acted like real men and took care of the women they had sex with and the children created from that union.”

Not all men abandon their unwanted children. This is obvious, but neatly glossed over.

“It’s not like the woman magically got pregnant on her own. (And shut up, little miss feminist, who’s screeching right now, “I don’t need a man!” Sure you do, honey. You certainly needed a man when you wanted to have sex. So like it or not, he’s involved.)”

Ms McAllister, anyone who has taken a sex ed class or is older than 15 knows this.

“Men are part of this process, part of the decision-making, and part of the solution if only they stand up and be reliable men who provide for their children.”

Not once have you entertained the idea that the woman might want an abortion, too. But whatever.

“‘But it’s about CHOICE!’ the yellow-bellied pro-abortionists wail. They’re so right. It is about choice. That choice was made when a guy and a girl decided to have sex (even if they used birth control, which is never 100 percent). So, yeah, it is about choice, but a coward runs from the responsibilities that are inextricably bound to that choice.”

You’re right. Birth control is never 100%. Isn’t it wonderful how we now have the technology to make it 100%, even after the fact? Look, people don’t decide on abortion because they’re cowards. They can have good reasons. Calling someone a coward because they got an abortion after their birth control didn’t work is like calling someone a sissy who went to the hospital after their airbag didn’t deploy. There are responsibilities and consequences to driving a car, and if the tech we’ve designed doesn’t work out, we’ve got some more tech to help them with that. It’s not an issue of moral hardness.

I won’t be quoting any more of this article. Because the logical problems come to a head, the last four paragraphs are the same ad hominem and No True Scotsman phrases repeated over and over again. Abortion is a polarizing subject. But it doesn’t need to be hateful.

[articulate-response-blog]

“Six facts that disprove EVERYTHING liberals say about gun control”

The offending article: http://www.allenbwest.com/analytical-economist/six-facts-that-disprove-everything-liberals-say-about-gun-control

“Consider this: there are half as many gun murders per-capita today as there were in the early 1990s, but only 12 percent of Americans are aware of that fact. By contrast, 56 percent think it’s increased, and 26 percent think it’s about the same…

You better believe the solutions proposed by those in Congress is faulty when most don’t even completely understand the nature of the problem.”

This is a false dilemma. The author assumes that members of Congress have the same understanding of gun violence that an average person does. They probably don’t; in fact, it’s their job to be more informed than the general public on these kinds of things.

“Here are just six facts courtesy of Breitbart News that you won’t see on MSNBC anytime soon…”

I’d say sourcing from Breitbart is like sourcing from Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal, but the whole “your source has a liberal bias” thing is really a black hole, so I won’t say more.

“1. Background Checks Do Not Stop High Profile Attackers–Although gun grabbers relentlessly push background checks as the solution to stopping high profile attacks on innocent Americans, the facts are that background checks do not hinder high profile attackers in the least. Alleged Orlando attacker Omar Mateen passed a background check for his guns, as did UCLA gunman Mainak Sarkar and almost every high profile attacker in the past 10 years. You can find a complete list here.”

Again, this is a false dilemma: the author assumes that the background checks we’ve got right now are as effective as is possible, and therefore the fact that these attackers passed them shows that they don’t work. The background check system might be able to be improved in some way, but this argument falsely shuts down that possibility.

“2. More People Killed With Clubs, Hammers Than Rifles–Amid the push for an “assault weapons” ban following the Sandy Hook attack, Breitbart News consulted FBI numbers for the years 2005-2011 and found that the number of murders by hammers and clubs constantly topped the number of murders by rifle. For example, In 2005 the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618. In 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.”

This… doesn’t have anything to do with gun control. I think murders with blunt objects are higher than those with rifles because objects like hammers are common, useful tools that weren’t primarily designed with violence in mind.

“3. AR-15s Are Not “Automatic” Rifles–Although politicians like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, celebrities like Seth MacFarlene, and too many media pundits to number have referred to the AR-15 as an “automatic” weapon during last few months, the fact remains that AR-15s are semiautomatic firearms. They shoot one round–and only one round–each time the trigger is pulled. This means an AR-15 shoots no faster than a Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm handgun, or a Glock or Sig Sauer .40 caliber handgun, or an H&K or Ruger .45 caliber handgun. Claims to the contrary are either based on ignorance or are part of a focused attempt to demonize the AR-15.”

This is completely true: AR-15s are semi-automatic. I’ve fired one before. It’s not great that the media continues to get this wrong. So you’re good on this point. Except for the part where you spelled “Seth MacFarlane” wrong.

“4. Guns Are Legally Used For Self-Defense Purposes Approximately 760,000 A Year–Staggering isn’t it? Especially when you consider the way the mainstream media covers gun crime after gun crime, giving the impression that guns are just bad things which bad people use to hurt good people.  Yet Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck has demonstrated that guns are used for defensive purposes approximately 760,000 a year in the United States.”

This is an interesting statistic, but the presence of the word “Approximately” should set off a red flag: it’s an estimation. The linked Breitbart article details how the scientist that generated this number did so from a survey, which is an interesting, if in my opinion unreliable way to collect crime data. As a counterpoint, we’ll look at the FBI’s Homicide database. Compare the numbers in this table for justifiable homicide by a private citizen to the numbers in this table for total homicide (the same one Breitbart used in #2). In 2012, there were 258 total justifiable firearm homicides, compared to 8,855 total homicides. That means that 3% of total homicides were deemed justifiable. So, as much as one might imagine that their buying a gun will help them defend something, in reality it’s very unlikely to happen. Then compare this to the number of suicides committed with guns in 2012 - 8,091 (found here) and I find it fairly distressing that almost as many people are killing themselves with their guns as are killing other people with their guns.

“5. Gun-Free Zones Are Killing Fields–The Orlando terror attack to place in gun-free zone. Result? Approximately 50 dead. The attack in the Umpqua Community College gun-free zone (October 2015) left 9 dead, the attack on the gun-free Chattanooga military offices (July 2015) left five dead, the attack in Fort Hood’s gun-free zone (April 2014) left 3 dead, the earlier attack in Fort Hood’s gun-free zone (November 2009) killed 13, the attack in the gun-free DC Navy Yard (September 2013) killed 12, the attack on gun-free Sandy Hook Elementary (December 2012) killed 26, the attack in the gun-free Aurora movie theater (July 2012) killed 12, and the attack on the gun-free Virginia Tech campus (April 2007) killed 32. Think about it–Eight gun-free zones, 207 firearm-related deaths.”

The author never tells us what constitutes a “gun-free zone”, but a Google search reveals that in the case of the Orlando shooting, concealed carry was not allowed in the Pulse nightclub. The actual text of the bill that created this “gun free zone” says that concealed firearms aren’t allowed in places which serve alcohol- which makes plenty of sense. I think this law has prevented plenty more violence than the presence of handguns during the Orlando shooting would have.

Anyways, this is an example of the texas sharpshooter fallacy: just because all of these things are correlated, doesn’t mean that correlation has any meaning. This point also ignores the plenty of other mass shootings that happened in “gun welcome” zones. 

“6. More Children Under 10 Killed By Fire, Drowning Than Accidental Gun Deaths— In 2010 the number of children under the age of 10 unintentionally killed in fire-related deaths was over seven times higher than the number of children killed in unintentional gun-related deaths, and the number of children killed in unintentional drowning deaths was sixteen times higher than the number of children killed in unintentional gun-related deaths.  The raw numbers were as follows: Number of children killed in unintentional fire-related deaths was 262, the number of unintentional drowning 609, the number of accidental gun-related deaths was 36.”

This point has the same problem as number two: it doesn’t have anything to do with guns or gun control. It simply shows that more people set things on fire and swim in pools than let their children play with guns.