Great Facebook post on gun debate in the aftermath of another U.S. school shooting

First, for background:

The Colorado teenager who barged into his high school with a shotgun on Friday, set off an explosive device, injured one student then killed himself was seeking "revenge" on the school's debate team instructor.

Karl Halversen Pierson, 18, entered Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colo. for the last time at approximately 12:30 p.m. Friday, seeking out school librarian Tracy Murphy, sources told ABC News. Pierson asked students where to find Murphy, according to police.

"The kid went after him specifically," the school's custodian Fabian Llerenas said. "He wanted to kill him."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/colorado-school-shooter-seeking-revenge-debate-instructor/story?id=21218890

(If you follow the source link you might be able to see a video, depending on your country, of the county sheriff talking about how they activated their "active shooter protocol." Because in the United States, an "active shooter protocol" is a thing.)

This was written by someone from The Knowledge Movement and I think it perfectly addresses the messed-up way we debate this subject in America:

"I have a request to make of my fellow Facebookers. If you're going to participate in a controversial thread, please try to stick to the facts. We had a spirited conversation following the school shooting in Colorado yesterday, and a couple of folks weighed in to defend their right to own guns, which is fine. I leave my settings open to the public for a reason; to welcome all views. But when someone uses a classic straw man argument to make their case – whatever it may be, then you're wasting everyone's time.

Two of the people who showed up to defend the 2nd Amendment used the argument that "They're trying to take away our guns." That's a lie, and everyone knows it, beginning with the people telling it. Those of us who are asking for sane gun laws recognize that guns are an integral part of this country's culture, and are here to stay (325,000 million guns in private hands? Who gets the job of confiscating them?). It's cowardly to defend your position by telling a lie, then expecting your counterpart to first disprove that lie before moving on to the FACTS. And in truth, both sides do it.

It's no different from the Fox News "War on Christmas" horsecrap. A handful of atheists challenged the use of public dollars going towards a crèche in the public square, and suddenly "Liberals are trying to do away with Christmas." Give me a break. That's a bald-faced lie and Fox knows it, and now they've turned it into an annual rite of disinformation. The only ones who believe it are the numbskulls who think Fox News is actually NEWS, and are incapable of distinguishing between chicken salad and chicken shit. That's the same tactic used by the defenders of the gun lobby: Begin with the lie, force your quarry to disprove it, then move on to the facts if all else fails... never admitting to the original lie.

Another example is the birthers. The Teabigots and their associated groups actually made a huge splash with this easily disproved lie, and continue to do so five years later. There are millions of voters who actually question whether or not their democratically elected president is an American citizen, because the liars who are bankrupt of any real opinions, have resorted to this tactic as well. These lies do a disservice to your position, your credibility, the art of conversation, and Democracy itself (I'm looking at you Trump).

So, new rule: If you begin with the lies, you lose by default. If you can't debate based on the facts, it's best to step aside and let someone else argue your point on your behalf. Quit muddying the waters for the rest of us just because your own facts are murky."