I do not think it rude to present arguments and counter arguments in a debate. I would however, in this case of gun control wonder if there is a difference between logical argumentation and being moved to consol, where some members may have lost loved ones due to guns. In those cases, one cannot further argue but offer sympathy and condolence out of respect for those victims of violence. Therefore, it can no longer be debated. Yet,if a victim were to use their grief within the debate, we have a problem: how can one argue logically with an emotion that begets our sorrow and so too would it place the opposite viewpoint into an indefensible position of being crass, unfeeling and shameful.

But isnt that also the danger... that we have also changed the rules of debate where appeal to a higher reason is trumped by an emotional appeal. For example, one could speculate that America was partly to blame for 911, appealing to the shame of poverty worldwide. yet only reason and argumentation could demonstrate the true motives of the terrorist., yet if one agues this, they become the supporters of world poverty because an emotional argument serves as its basis . Or in another case, that revenge for 911 serves as a basis for war with saddam where critics are labelled as unpatriotic. How can you discuss these things when we are moved to consol or to be united against tyranny etc. Please, these are just examples and not my view of these complex problems.

Emotion is not enough and logic and reasoning cannot stand alone and we must act with our heads and our hearts. If one wishes to share their grief, I am moved to consolation and if it is indeed shameful to collect guns, i will no longer collect them. I have ensured that these guns I have are not a threat to the public even if stolen and therefore my concsience is clear.