How to argue gun control

Why do we argue against gun control fanatics? We could just ignore them and hope that they go away. We could trust in the innate ability of normal humans to see whack jobs and discount them and their causes.

But we don’t. We have seen what happens when we fail to protect our rights. When you fail to prepare the ground before a fight, you end up fighting on the ground your opponent has chosen for you. Think of football. When the offensive line runs into the defensive line, does the defense just stand there flat footed? No, they charge in, hoping to knock them back and hopefully sack the quarterback. It should be the same with us.

I have enjoyed sparring with japete. And by sparring, I mean smacking her over the head with reality. The reality doesn’t sink in, but it’s helped me refine my arguments. It seems to me that one month ago I was far more likely to argue the specific gun grabber plan than I am now. This means two sides arguing over how much of their plan will be implemented. They ask for X, we counter with 0, they get some value between 0 and X. Lather, rinse, repeat, and the ratchet tightens still further.

I have a better plan now. Each time someone proposes further infringements on my rights, I counter with an attack on the previous infringements. The antis depend on people believing that the antis are “reasonable” folks looking for “common sense” solutions. We both know that is pure, unadulterated horse manure, but the average voter may be taken in by the nice suit Paul Helmke wears, along with the suave way he wipes the foam from his lips. (Gratuitous Miles Vorkosigan reference) The whole shtick relies on us accepting the premise that Government gun control will have some positive effect on crime rates, if only we have the courage to pass for the right law. Since the premise is horse crap, why do we argue as though it is true? Why do we cede to our enemies that moral high ground? (And they are enemies to us, even if we are not enemies to them!)

I ask the gun grabbers to show me any evidence that the current set of infringements on our right to keep and bear arms is effective in any way at reducing crime. Instead of asking them to prove that future infringements will work, ask them to show how previous ones have worked. Keep hammering the point that nothing they have tried so far has worked, and so we should scrap it all.

During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

Make them argue that we need to retain an obviously flawed system that has no practical benefits while you continually point out the flaws and drawbacks. Keep forcing them to make the case for the CURRENT mess instead of giving them free reign to ask for more infringements. Basically, when they ask for X, you should counteroffer X minus infinity. Make them justify even the smallest infringement with facts instead of feelings, and the average American will start to see how unreasonable they are and how their “common sense” is neither.

Only when you have prepared the ground this way will calling them bigots and fear mongers start to work. Once you have broken their image of reasonableness you can start to attribute evil thoughts to their unreasonable actions.

Comments are closed.