Memes are entertaining and funny. They're useful for political messaging, but they can also be useful for spreading misinformation, or even deceitful content, in the form of pithy captions and slogans.

When these memes go viral, the captions and slogans become entrained in people's minds. They are filed away under "automatic recall", to be pulled out in any debate or discussion about the topic, and oftentimes, the mind in question hasn't gone through the requisite steps to determine if the slogan is correct or logically consistent. It sounds good; it fits with my preconceived beliefs; therefore it is correct.

Such is the case with pro-gun control memes.

Today I looked at over a hundred pro-gun control / anti-gun memes and protest signs. Almost every single one presented an opinion as fact, contained a serious logical flaw of some kind, or outright lied.

Here are some of the worst offenders, along with my criticism:

So you're telling me you had to fill out a two page form, present a government-issued ID, and submit to a federal background check in order to buy that piece of posterboard?

Because that--at the minimum--is what you have to do to purchase a gun in any state in the U.S. But this guy is saying it was even harder to buy the poster board than to buy an AR. So--did the Walmart cashier subject him to a lie detector test? No, that can't be it. He would have failed. Sharpie competency exam? Waterboarding? Details, please!

This one's very tricky. Unlike our first example, which is obvious lying, I don't think the speaker here realizes the error in what he is suggesting.

Yes. The TSA did change air travel security regulations in response to a failed shoe bombing. Also, if you'll remember a little farther back, the U.S. government created the TSA in response to a major terrorist attack. Over fifteen years later, only 0.6 percent of TSA flaggings have resulted in an arrest, and none of those have been related to terrorism. And not only has the TSA been ineffective at catching terrorists (even with the rule about taking off your shoes in the security line), but its existence has significantly impacted the lives of innocent American travelers in myriad ways, possibly even costing lives

What John Oliver fails to realize is that stricter gun control would have the same effect as the TSA shoe rule, or its liquid ban, or hell, the whole TSA itself: it would not prevent criminals from committing crimes. It would not prevent people bent on committing a public massacre from trying to do it. But it would adversely affect innocent Americans, possibly even costing lives.

Pro tip: If you're going to advocate that a government policy used in one sector of society ought to be used in another, you might want to make sure the policy was at least minimally successful, first.

Ah, here's a good one.

You've probably seen this one passed around. It's almost the perfect tweet: indignant, self-righteous, pointed...but sadly, wrong.

For one thing, if the child was initiating violence against another child, of course you take away the stick. Guess what? When someone commits or attempts to commit murder with a gun, we take away their gun, too. Along with their legal ability to purchase guns. So if that's all Phil meant, he's a little too late.

But there ought to be a fourth option on this list, because it is the fourth (and curiously missing option) that is what many gun control supporters would like to inflict upon the rest of society. The fourth choice should read:

D. Take away every stick from every single child in the neighborhood (and beat them with sticks if they don't comply), then burn every tree in sight.

Most people, I think, would look at this tweet as an analogy in which the parent is the government, the stick is a gun, and the child is a mass shooter. But what it really says, when you consider the reality it attempts to analogize, is that the parent is the government, the stick is ALL GUNS, and the child is ALL OF US. In other words, we are all lost children, the government is our parent, and we have been naughty, playing with sticks, so Daddy or Mommy has to come take the sticks away from us.

How do people even get by in the real world with such infantile attitudes and self-images?

That's sad.

Yes, school shootings are tragic, when they happen. They are gut-wrenching. No one wants them to happen. But the fact remains that school shootings represent only a tiny fraction of all gun deaths in the United States, and an infinitesimally small proportion of total teen deaths per year. You are way more likely to die in a car wreck than in a school shooting, but do you fear riding or driving to school in the mornings? No, that would be irrational. Just like fearing you will die at a school shooting. I empathize with kids and their parents who have this irrational fear (I've had irrational fears before, myself)...but that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend the fear is not irrational. And it definitely doesn't mean I'm going to support their ill-drawn conclusions.

Look, America has more privately owned guns than it does people. If law-abiding gun owners were the ones responsible for gun crime and mass shootings, you'd know it. You'd know it because you wouldn't be able to go anywhere without being shot at. Gun owners are literally all around you, and 99.9% of them will never turn their guns on another human being unless in self defense. So, maybe instead of trying to turn peaceful gun owners into criminals, you should be focused on actual criminals (you know, the ones who create victims?)

Yes, I agree. Human lives are more valuable than guns.

That's why we have the right to bear arms. Guns exist. That's not going to change. And as long as guns exist, criminals will want to use them. And since criminals do not check to ensure they are following the law before committing crimes, they will obtain guns in spite of whatever regulation you propose. And as long as criminals have guns, peaceful non-criminals will need guns to defend themselves from criminals. Self-defense is a basic human right, a logical extension of self-ownership. If you try to use the government to take that right away from people, then you are the one who is undervaluing life.

Ah. Here we go. Tell us what you really think, creepy protest guy.

For those who don't know, this guy is putting a spin on the common pro-gun slogan, "You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands."

What's interesting is that this retort contains an implicit threat to murder, whereas the original pro-gun version does not. Make no mistake, this guy is saying "I want peaceful gun owners to be forced to surrender their guns, and if they do not comply, I want them killed." Of course, he's not going to do the killing himself. He'd rather send the government to do the dirty work in his place. I wonder what kind of mental and moral gymnastics he has to do to justify the murder of innocent people as punishment for the actions of criminals. I wonder if he knows that he's basically asking for civil war.

Part 2 is up! Check it out!

Hi, I'm Starr!

I believe all human interactions should be consensual

I love you, Steemit!