One swallow does not a Summer make.

Clichés of this sort stick around for a reason--usually because they are based on a fundamental truth.  In the conversation about gun-control there are many fundamental, logical truths that are side-stepped (so to speak) by the participants.  I'd just like to point out a few from today.

 

The first fallacy is the simplest, and it is the one to which the title of this post refers.  It is absolutely impossible to solve the issue of gun control (whether for more regulation, as intended by the first tweet, or against, as intended by the second) by referring to one case or a small sampling of cases.  The argument over gun control must be concerned first (though not solely) with statistics and studies.  If you're not slinging numbers, take your sloppy shit elsewhere because you are just muddying the waters.  In case you are interested, this is an instance of Hasty Generalization.

 

Next up is a classic Red Herring.  Notice that no rational participant in the conversation is suggesting that new regulations can eliminate or stop gun violence altogether.  The tweep above is absolutely correct, it would be delusional to think this possible--that's why we don't think that.  Perhaps I smell a bit of Straw Man here as well?

If we remove some of these simple errors in thinking from the conversation, perhaps we'll make some progress.