I don't think the speaker intended to elicit verbal feedback. I think he was asking a rhetorical question (why do people need military assault rifles) to emphasize that there's no good answer, and he wanted to drive that point home, so he used the initial non-reply for further emphasis, which was still not intended to be an invitation for audience participation, based on his reaction to the responses that he got.

Basically; even if he failed asking a rhetorical question in such a way that did not provoke people to speak, the people who felt compelled to speak should have used their good sense not to because of the impact of the tragedy on him and his family.

Nobody is asking you or them to agree with his views simply because of this situation. It's not insensitive to disagree, it's insensitive to challenge him in that setting, even if they interpreted him as inviting audience feedback, which I seriously doubt he intended to do.

At any rate, that's half the problem. The other half of the problem is the answer the people gave ('2nd amendment') was an irrelevant non-answer, which makes them look that much more moronic for choosing to field a rhetorical question that they obviously did not grasp via their feeble gun addled brains.

Of course you don't have to... you don't have to do anything.

Feeling the need to interrupt a grieving father whose kid was just murdered kind of means you're a jerk though

Similarly, if he was calling for armed teachers and someone shouted out "no more guns" That person would recieve a similar title IMO.

The guy just lost his son in the worst way possible, what is the purpose of challenging him? Is the gun battle won and lost based on what insensitive dbags shout out at press conferences?

If anything, this has the effect of making anti gunners believe (even more fervently than before perhaps) that pro gun people are cold heartless people.

The problem is he created new evidence by attempting to use the audiences' silence as acquiesence for the point he was making.

When he brings in other people's opinions, his question, definitively, becomes non-rhetorical/direct.

He was asking to gain information, which is proved by his use of that silence as evidence to make his next point.

The question was not rhetorical and once he brings other people in, it is only fair they have the right to clarify their position, which they did, exactly when it became apparent that the question was not rhetorical!

To be clear, the audience did not challenge him, he challenged the audience - a critical distinction.

If he got up there and started talking about his dead son, and the audience yelled 'blah blah blah, we're not giving up our guns', then I would agree that is heckling and insensitive, however that is not what happened in the slightest.

The guy is emotionally distraught and looking for a handle on this unfathomable horror. So he blows off a little steam by lashing out at what he believes is hte reason for his sons death.

So ok, I stand corrected technically he challenged them but I honestly dont see how this changes anything...

How about a little compassion? Understanding? Empathy?

Empathy? Pffft there are hobbies to consider

He can lash out he wants, and speak his mind fully.

When he purports to speak for other individuals though, that crosses a line and, insensitively or not, the people he chooses to bring into his argument have a place in a fair society to defend what they actually think.

Imagine if, whenever a person has been damaged, everybody else has to do what he says.

It's crazy for a number of reasons.

So this isn't about being insentive, it's about holding an intelligent debate where facts matter, rather than constructing laws where the facts are on the moon because of emotional stress.

Who says we have to "do what he says"? I feel like you are talking about a different event than I am.

This honestly sounds like pro gun paranoia. No one is making laws based on the pleadings of a grief stricken father. It doesn't hurt be be a little human every now and then.

Let me turn the tables on you then.

If you were at a committee in the audience, and someone who had been damaged attempted to speak for you, would you sit silent when you disagree because he is venting his emotions, or would you speak up?

What if he said, 'everyone in the audience should be murdered right now'?

Certainly you would speak up then, so why not for something of a lesser degree, because that's all it is - a difference of degrees.

Who is he speaking for? He is stating his opinion.

If he named me, and said something I don't believe in, sure.... failing that though, I really don't see the problem

"Everyone in this audience should be murdered right now" could be taken as a threat, so I imagine that would be quite different.

If you disagree you should speak it out later, since it was not a debate, but an individual speech. You don't interrupt the speech even if you disagree.
'everyone in the audience should be murdered right now' - would be a totally different issue, since it would be a hate speech inviting to do harm to others, and its a legal violation. Now he was just expressing his opinion on a totally valid topic.

For some reason the edit is being weird.

Should be "If he named me and said I believed in something I didn't, sure.

Thinking about it though, skinners suggestion of just correcting it later is better even in that scenario

They didn't answer his question though. They yelled second amendment, shall not be infringed, arr, arr, arr. they felt challenged by a grieving dad and started saying absolute rubbish that had nothing to do with the question he asked. Every clip like that showing ******ed gun owners acting ******ed is just another confirmation of the intellect of these guys that think they have a right to own these ridiculous over the top weapons.

He was speaking for the audience when he asked if any of them had a good reason for high cap. mags, and when no one answered at first, he used that information as evidence to support the next claim he made to the committee chair.

So he was not just stating his personal opinion. He was attempting to bring in new evidence, from right there in the committee meeting.

It was at that point, when his question moved from maybe-rhetorical to absolutely a direct question, the audience replied, which was fair-defense in my book.

They did not interrupt. The audience was asked a direct question which they, at first, thought may be rhetorical. When it was clear the speaker was then using their silence as ammunition, then they spoke up, which is just fair.

All that the media is misconstruing as heckling is 100% because the speaker opened the door for the audience to reply.

He also said "think about it" a couple of times. He didn't ask for an immediate response, just asked to give it a thought.

Not to be terse, but cmon. he was clearly making a rhetorical point. Have you seen the video, he is sobbing his eyes out the whole way... you honestly think hes ready for a debate?

So a guy wants to be reassured after somebody murdered his son... you really want to deny him that? I just dont see the purpose. Does it make you feel good to want to get your counterpoint in over the sobs of a father who just lost a son?

As I said early, this is nothing but harmful for gun advocates, as it makes them seem cold. This point was going to be made by pundits all over the place later anyway...

He was not speaking for the audience, he was asking them a direct question. A clear and concise question that no-one, gun owner or otherwise, could answer.
It was not until he continued to speak that a few nimrods started spewing their nonsense.

'Second amendment' and 'shall not be infringed' are not answers to his question in any way shape or form.

You can be terse all you want.

He was not making a rhetorical point.

The evidence for this is he used the silence of the audience - when he asked his question - as evidence in drawing his next point.

If he said "Can anyone in this room make a good argument against gun regs? I highly doubt it", then that would fit with rhetorical intentions.

Here instead he says "Can anyone in this room argue against gun regs?" Turns, looks around, turns back around "Welp, no one can argue against, therefore ..." At that point, it becomes clear that his question was not rhetorical and his question instead was posed to gain information - the critical difference.

Secondly, he was not sobbing as you say. I'm not claiming he wasn't grieving, but he certainly wasn't sobbing as you say, in fact I don't recall any tears, please point me to the place in the video where a single tear fell.

Everything that happened in that video the man brought upon himself by attempting to speak for others. The fact is when you speak for others, they have a fair chance to correct any misinformation. It's not about being insensitive it's about being clear and fair.

He was asking them a direct question and he was speaking for them, which they, once they realized it in fact was a direct question, clarified their position, which is justified under any fair measure.

Like I said earlier, the audience is not who had the floor, so they could not go into a lengthy defense of gun rights when the door was opened to them briefly by the speaker.

Citing the 2nd Amendment is a fine sound byte/token to throw out given the limitation of the context. It's not like they were given the floor to go into a lengthy clarification of their position.

"He was my Buddy he was my best friend"

He is very clearly choking back a tear in this statement

This is not a debate, its not a court preceding, you saying "they should have a chance to respond and correct misinformation" Shows a complete disregard for the emotional force of the situation.

It comes down to tact, and whether you have some or not.

Also, sorry but still absolutely rhetorical... him asking that question is the equivalent of saying "there is no one who can argue against gun regulations." He was not expecting a response nor did he want one.

I mean honestly what did you expect? Someone was gonna say something and then he'd say "Oh, I get it now, thanks." I mean really.

A rhetorical question is not meant to gather facts. Agree/Disagree

This man's question was meant to gain facts. Agree/Disagree

This man's question was not rhetorical. Agree/Disagree

I would think these answers would be obvious based on my responses so far but...

agree

disagree

disagree

Ok #2, so he posed his question, turned around and looked at the audience, got no reply, then said 'well there you go, no one has any reply'

How isn't that fishing for information, getting that information, then using it? it seem clearly so to me.