This isn’t “having an opinion about being shot“ you fucking moron. It’s actively trying to change laws they know nothing about.
“If you could possibly be involved in a terrorist attack, you deserve to be Secretary of State.”
“If you’re old enough to eat, you’re old enough to be a member of the FDA.”
OP, the logical fallacy here is…epic dude. you completely jumped from one situation/position and exaggerated it 10x more. i could at least hear you out if you didn’t straw man the whole thing and actually stuck to the facts of the matter here. overall, this counterargument sucks 👎🏽
Please explain to me specifically how suggesting that anyone who can eat should be able to make rules about food is different from saying anyone who can be shot should be able to make rules about guns?
I always like it when I address the logical fallacies in an argument by making a similarly illogical argument and I get “no that’s just stupid. Your example is so stupid! That’s dumb! You’re dumb!”, yet they never bother to explain exactly how it’s stupid and why it’s different from the original argument.