There are a lot of arguments we’ve seen from the anti-gun side of things. Most of them are based not on fact, but emotion.

Even the studies they like to cite are problematic, not because they’re inconvenient to us but because the methodology was created in order to reach a preconceived result. That means they’re not based on fact, but the emotion-based notions of the so-called researchers.

As such, we’ve seen just about everything.

Yet a piece from Michigan tries to take it to new lows.

Now, a little more than a year after a 15-year-old student shot and killed four other students — Baldwin, 17; Tate Myre, 16; Hana St. Juliana, 14; and Justin Shilling, 17 — Johnson is tired of people “telling me how bad they feel or how sorry they are.”

“I’m tired of thoughts and prayers that are not backed by action,” Johnson, who’s now a college freshman, said during a Wednesday press conference at which survivors of the Oxford shooting called on state lawmakers to quickly act on gun reform. Johnson is also the vice president of No Future Without Today, a gun reform organization that Oxford students formed in the wake of the shooting.

“I’m here to express the importance of legislation that can save many lives because the youth of America were never meant to attend so many funerals,” Johnson said.

Ah, yes, the idea that American young people are universally attending a ton of funerals.

Except, they’re not.

Oh, I have no doubt that the Oxford survivors saw more than their fair share of funerals. That’s true of many of the survivors of mass shootings, I’m sure.

But those experiences shouldn’t be presented as typical. There’s absolutely no evidence presented to support that assertion.

The vast majority of American young people aren’t seeing any more funerals than they have been. There are exceptions, but those are either survivors of mass shootings or people who are part of the gang subculture in our inner cities.

Yet even in the cities, it’s not necessarily true that the youth are somehow attending more funerals than they have in the past.

What we’re seeing, though, isn’t a rational argument, but an attempt at anti-gun emotional blackmail. Johnson isn’t trying to convince us that guns are a problem with actual data but with a claim that’s bound to tug at heartstrings.

See, as adults, we’re predisposed to want to protect the young. It’s an evolutionary psychological adaptation designed to help protect the species. Johnson is playing off of this in an effort to pressure more mature folks to try and protect the young by passing gun control.

Yet just what measures would actually do anything?

Even the UK, where they have the kind of gun control laws anti-gunners here could only dream of still has mass shootings. If that’s the case there, why would we suddenly see an end to such shootings after an assault weapon ban?

The short answer is that we wouldn’t. The assault weapon ban we did have didn’t reduce the number of mass shootings, after all.

I’m sorry, but I’m not falling for it and neither should anyone else.