This Week in Polarization: The “debate” over gun control continues

As an American, we value the right to freedom and disagreement - we are deeply worried about the important issues that we need to deal with often. But polarization weakens freedom by tightening prejudice rather than opening thought, thereby compromising the opportunity to move forward in search of resolutions. Thus, polarization may seem like a legitimate supporter of freedom and justice, but in fact the opposite goes true - spokes of democratic freedom of speech are committed. The general method is as follows.

Loaded, strong language and rustic name calls, temptation by more attractive emotional reasons

BLINKERS does not actually solve them, but uses the fact of cherry picking, the opposite argument and the ignorance or ridicule of evidence.

By focusing on the problem of "Scarecrow", the value of these problems is obviously greater than its essence in strengthening prejudice.

FLATTERS with language and tone makes you feel like an insider, of course they agree with them.

FRIGHTENS draws each other as just a mistake, but it is full of dangerous, evil enemies and evil hidden agenda.

"KLANS" is an identity political game that connects "implicitly" "low" and "us" from different perspectives to groups and people.

"TRIBES" uses satirical, satire satire, coding language, quoted word (meaning that it may be misleading), and hints.

this week. . "Argument" on gun control - as a leader in threats, slogans, nicknames and accusations - continues as a tragic example dealing with complex problems, including conflicting values ​​in the United States today. No one will listen to respect. Everyone shouted angrily. This is not a way to solve the problem. This is the rise of authoritarianism. The target is a gun ... or tax ... or an immigrant ... or a bathroom. But the risk is much higher than any other problem. When did you notice what you have lost?

* When reading these examples, check your list above and ask yourself. Whether you agree or not, does this actually push a wise solution through a convincing and rational advocacy argument? Just by splitting, will the emotions cause conflict manipulation due to the polarization of the flame?

Even in a generally biased political environment, discussions on federal gun control laws will produce some of the most intense and emotional remarks. Massive bombardment got in the way, and they always lighted the call for anger to strict the relatively loose gun control law in America. However, these requirements are equally powerful in protecting the right to rearm an individual. As pointed out in the survey conducted by the US Foreign Relations Council on Firearm Regulation Law, Article 2 of the amendment of the Constitution guarantees "the right for people to hold and carry weapons". But let other freedom of constitution resemble speech. The US Supreme Court allows reasonable legal restrictions on this right. The need to balance importantly between individual freedom and reasonable restrictions has brought about the historical development of the law at the fire department.

this week. . "Argument" on gun control - as a leader in threats, slogans, nicknames and accusations - continues as a tragic example dealing with complex problems, including conflicting values ​​in the United States today. No one will listen to respect. Everyone shouted angrily. This is not a way to solve the problem. This is the rise of authoritarianism. The target is a gun ... or tax ... or an immigrant ... or a bathroom. But the risk is much higher than any other problem. When did you notice what you have lost?

Paper: Gun Control Canada recently discussed a lot about the cancer control problem. The Canadian parliament enacted the "gun law" and requested the gun owner to register firearms to implement gun control. Just recently, the Alberta government leader, including five other states and many groups to support guns, sued the law as asymmetric. Regulation gun gun control Part 1: Introduction of gun control and violence ... Both gun violence is an important dilemma for North American society. Strict fundamental laws enacted and enforced by federal and state governments in Canada and the United States are effective in dealing with firearms and associated violence. In essence, gun violence has resulted in a higher mortality rate than Canada, as the US system has flaws. The American system is wrong. Because they firmly believe in the second amendment.