"Gun Control" Laws are a lot like Jelly Doughnuts


#1

Implementing “gun control” laws as a means to reduce gun-related violence is a lot like a heart surgeon trying to perform open heart surgery with a jelly doughnut

The surgeon stands before his patient in the operating room. He calls for a scalpel from the nurse. Instead of handing him a scalpel to make the incision, the nurse hands him a jelly doughnut. “What the heck is this!?!” exclaims the surgeon as he sets the jelly doughnut aside.

He tells the nurse that he must make a precise incision in order to begin the surgery that will actually help the patient and that he cannot do it with a jelly doughnut. He calls for a scalpel again and this time the nurse places two jelly doughnuts in his waiting hand.

He tosses the doughnuts on the floor and says “just what the hell is going on? I cannot help this patient with a jelly doughnut!” The nurse and the anesthesiologist urge the surgeon to continue! Just use more jelly doughnuts! As many as it takes! More, more, more jelly doughnuts goes the mantra!

The surgeon is beside himself! What is their fixation with jelly doughnuts (gun control!)? Have these people no sense? I cannot help this patient (nation) with jelly doughnuts! Do they not understand this? In the background he continues to hear the “more jelly donuts” mantra.

As he waits to get a scalpel to start the procedure, the mantra continues, more jelly doughnuts are offered, and more and more of the patient’s heart dies because he cannot perform the necessary surgery (a focus on mental health, drugs, gangs, poverty, etc.)

More jelly doughnuts! More jelly doughnuts! As more and more people die for lack of real action. More jelly doughnuts indeed…


#2

An interesting allegory.


#3

Do you have any idea how much I am now craving for a jelly doughnut? :heart_eyes:


#4

Me too.

:coffee: :doughnut: :doughnut:


#5

I prefer coconut sprinkles on my donuts.

It would be wonderful if we could restrict gun ownership and use to those who have a genuine need such as police, farmers who face crop-eating vermin, country dwellers who might face feral animals…
In fact we can’t do that. Trying to ban firearms would be Prohibition all over again. Organized crime would grow more powerful and more people would become lawbreakers.

Properly designed firearms regulation might do some limited good.


#6

Just who would determine this “genuine need”? The politicians? YOW! That wouldn’t go well I’m sure.

Actually a lot like today’s “war on drugs.”

Yeah, like what?


#7

I have no idea how to properly design such regulation. I just would love to see it done and enforced.
Or do you mean not ‘what regulations’ but ‘what good’?


#8

No matter how perfectly the batter is prepared, no matter the quality of the jelly or the expertise employed when frying, a jelly doughnut (AKA gun control), isn’t going to stem gun-related violent crime.

Other things (no matter how difficult, controversial or costly) are going to have to be considered and worked. To continue to focus on jelly doughnuts is to put politics before public safety. It’s to concede human life itself.


#9


#10

I see I have met my fellow doughnut enthusiasts.


#11

It would go better than any other determination - especially the determination made by each individual for himself without any regard for what anyone else says. That I am sure wouldn’t go well.

I think we need to establish a new category of logical fallacy called the “jelly-donut argument,” similar to the straw man argument. With the straw man argument you set up your opponent’s point as a straw man and then knock him down. Easy. With this fallacy, you say your opponent’s argument is a jelly donut, and then eat it. Easy too. And fattening. But still a logical fallacy.


#12

=“Zaccheus, post:5, topic:457642”]
It would be wonderful if we could restrict gun ownership and use to those who have a genuine need such as police, farmers who face crop-eating vermin, country dwellers who might face feral animals…

I think we are seeing that over the last few years with religious free exercise. A priest is not forced to participate in a same gender “marriage” (not yet, anyway), but a parishioner who is a baker is forced to. I guess the priest has a “genuine need”.

In fact we can’t do that. Trying to ban firearms would be Prohibition all over again. Organized crime would grow more powerful and more people would become lawbreakers.

More than this, it is a protected inherent human and civil right. Buying alcohol is not.

Properly designed firearms regulation might do some limited good.

We already have some, bureaucratic mistakes notwithstanding. But if we can develop more that do not target the law abiding, I think it’s worth a look.


#13

What makes you say that? It would be a horribly political process – not that it would be legal to begin with.

No “logical fallacy” with the jelly doughnut allegory. Go back and review what a strawman argument actually is…


#14

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.