Yet Another Silly Argument.
An horrible event happens to some poor wretch lets call J. Furthermore lets stipulate that whatever it is that happened to J is an issue that has been hotly debated off and on over an extended period of time. Political leader X then steps up and proposes a law or an initiative to make sure whatever happened to J is stopped. X's opponent C then accuses X of using J and J's horrible event to further X's career. Follow?
Probably not but I'll give you a real world event that illustrates what I am talking about. Columbine. After Columbine President Clinton proposed some more gun control and his opponents (and gun control's opponents) then accused President Clinton of exploiting Columbine to pursue a political agenda. Duh! Again cheap populism.
What's the alternative? You all probably know the story. A couple is at the kitchen table and the wife says to the husband fix the hole in the roof! The husband says Why? Its not raining, nothing is being hurt. The wife gives up. Five days later they are in their kitchen again and it is raining and the drops are going drip-drip-drip-drip on their heads. The wife complains and demands her husband fix the roof. He then says but honey, I can't its raining! (no this was not a transcription of a conversation between Claudia and Marcus).
Now, don't get me wrong. I am definitely no fan of the mediocrity we call President Clinton nor does this owner of guns and (occasional) hunter arguing for gun control here. I am arguing for better argumentation.
Arguments such as the one I illustrate may work a couple of times but sooner or later the argument will fail to persuade (rightly so, it is more ad-hominem than anything).