A “trick,” if you want to call it that, Republicans use to manipulate people into falling for their propaganda is by playing what I call the “all-or-nothing” game. It’s where they essentially argue that if something they oppose won’t fix 100 percent of the problem, then it’s terrible and pointless.
For example, when they talk about universal health care. Republicans don’t focus on the overwhelming benefits of having such a system, the fact that most major countries on Earth have some form of single-payer, or that our for-profit health care system is causing Americans to pay much more for health care than the citizens of these other countries. Instead, they’ll find outliers to use as negative examples where single-payer health care wasn’t 100 percent perfect. They’ll find the rare instance where a pregnant woman couldn’t get admitted to a hospital or someone from Canada was forced to come to the United States for coverage, selling those types of examples as the norm instead of what they really are: the exceptions to the rule.
They do this when it comes to the debate over guns and gun regulations, as well.
They’ll claim that because common sense regulations on guns (expanded background checks, bans on military-style assault weapons, limits on magazine size) won’t end all gun violence, then there’s no point in even trying.
I’m sure that plays well to people who lack the ability to think for themselves, but this argument doesn’t make sense for those of us who have common sense or understand basic math. We understand that even if you can lower gun violence by 20 percent that we would literally be saving thousands of lives.
However, according to Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, based upon comments he made during a debate with Mediaite’s Colby Hall on Tuesday night, it seems that trying to do anything to save any lives is pointless.
During the back and forth exchange where Hall argued that it’s “cowardly and embarrassing” for lawmakers to claim that nothing can be done, Carolson took exception to what he called Hall showing his “virtue on display” without actually presenting any kind of solutions.
After Carlson asked Hall to provide what he thought were solutions for our gun violence problem, he pointed to the (legal) bump stock the shooter used to illegally modify his gun from semi-automatic to fully-automatic. That’s when Carlson showcased what I feel is a perfect example of conservative ignorance on guns.
“Fine, ban it [bump stock], but that would not have saved a massive number of lives because it’s still possible to pull the trigger awfully quickly on a semi-automatic rifle,” Carlson stated.
What’s so sad is that Carlson’s too full of his own b.s. to realize that he just dismissed saving any lives as significant — then proceeded to basically explain why semi-automatic weapons should be illegal.
After all, if he’s fine with fully-automatic weapons being illegal (as he seems to indicate he is by saying he’s fine with banning the bump stock), yet he claims that won’t “save a massive number of lives because it’s still possible to pull the trigger awfully quickly on a semi-automatic rifle,” isn’t that a great argument as to why they should also be illegal?
There I go again, making the mistake of trying to use common sense when attempting to break down the comments made by a Republican.
This is a textbook example of Republican ignorance.
On one hand, Carlson is essentially saying that a reduction in lost lives isn’t worth trying to regulate anything to do with guns — an argument I doubt he’d make to the families of the victims of gun violence. On the other hand, while trying to argue against gun regulations, he actually provided a great argument as to why, just like fully-automatic firearms, semi-automatic weapons should also be illegal.
It’s a good thing for Republicans like Tucker Carlson that the audience to which he panders doesn’t like to think for themselves. Otherwise they’d realize how ridiculous many of the things they say and believe actually are.
Watch the exchange below via Fox News: