A debate angle I just now thought of

[misANTHrope]

All of us who watched the Presidential campaign at all heard Obama repeat a certain phrase over and over. I'm talking about his constant references to "eight years of George W. Bush's failed policies" or some version thereof. He used this, of course, as a derogatory statement, to paint McCain as a continuation of a series of failed policies.

Now, one of my favorite debate tactics is to turn an opponent's words against him. Beyond being generally effective, it's also just plain fun.

Anyway, I got to thinking- there are a lot more than eight years of failed gun control policies. And they've all failed. They've failed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, they've failed to reduce crime, they've failed do anything constructive.

So, I suggest that if/when we see Obama, or any of his supporters, bring gun control into the picture, it's time to turn his words against him. He wanted to reverse the damage of failed policies, well, here's a failed policy he's supporting.

Just an interesting way of looking at it that just occurred to me. Hopefully this is resemblant enough to some kind of plan to live in this forum; if not, lock away and please accept my apologies.

 

[JohnKSa]

From the perspective of the gun control pushers the policies are not failing.

• They're making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns.
• They're making guns more expensive.
• They're making it possible to prosecute/penalize/restrict law-abiding citizens who own guns for meaningless/minor offenses.
• They're getting the general population more and more used to the idea that gun ownership, gun use and gun purchases need to be restricted.
• They're stepping stones on the way to more policies that will further the goals of the anti-gunners.

It's only the dupes (the non-thinkers who foolishly believe that criminals actually obey laws) that support gun-control because they really think it is about reducing crime. The people in power who are actually making these laws a reality know the truth and are realizing their true goals.

 

[6_gunner]

Good points, both of you.

The gun control policy of power-hungry politicians is succeeding in its unstated goals of gaining control over individuals. However, it is failing miserably in its stated goals of reducing violent crime and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

It's true that only fools believe that criminals actually obey the laws, but those are the kind of people with whom most of us would find ourselves arguing. Pointing out the failure of gun control to realize its stated goals can help to open the eyes of the misinformed "dupes" to the reality of the situation. If we can enlighten more people to the failures and dangers of gun control, then we gain allies in our fight.

Some people are so far gone that they can't be reached by rational arguments. But some of them are just ignorant, and can be helped if someone is willing to take the time to educate them.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

But he won't see gun controlasafailure. He'll say what gun rights we have are a failure, in spite of statistics.

 

[misANTHrope]

It's only the dupes (the non-thinkers who foolishly believe that criminals actually obey laws) that support gun-control because they really think it is about reducing crime. The people in power who are actually making these laws a reality know the truth and are realizing their true goals.

Perhaps, but the dupes make up the vast majority of the voting public. And so, for now at least, the lawmakers cannot try to garner public support simply by stating the obvious- that the proposed laws will make it hard for people to buy guns.

There still must be justification, even if it's only a facade, for making it harder to buy, own, or shoot guns. And this, I argue, is the vulnerability, regardless of whether it's a flimsy rationalization or an actual deeply-held belief.

It will be presented publicly as truth, and so I see this as a line of attack. If we debunk their rationalizations, then they lose their primary method of support. It doesn't mean they can't or won't try to push through legislation, but it makes it a lot more politically distasteful to do so. And politicians, on the whole, are primarily concerned with keeping their positions.

I may not have been particularly clear in my original post. I'm not suggesting that we try to convince Obama, or Pelosi, or Feinstein, that gun control is a failure. They're the folks who are married to their opinion, and are not going to be swayed.

Rather, we look at the population as a whole. The folks who ate up Obama's condemnation of "eight years of failed policies," and voted him into office on those words. The public of this country still remain the most powerful political force, and they are the ones we need on our side.

And in case anyone doubted it previously, this November has solidly proven, in my mind, that pretty words can be used to dress up damn near anything, or even nothing at all, and make people believe in it. How many people voted for "change" without even knowing what was going to change? They weren't convinced by rational discourse and logical arguments. They were convinced by someone who knew exactly how to harness their frustration and play on their emotions.

Anyway, I digress a bit. Where I was going with that is that people across the country nodded their heads in unison when Obama spoke of "eight years of failed policies." Regardless of whether the policies were failed or not, it made for a quick summation of Obama's campaign strategy. And it worked.

In the end, this was just a sudden nugget that popped into my brain late last night, and seemed like one of those things I might regret not putting down on paper if I forgot it later on. I think it might just make for a good addition to my debate toolbox.

 

[ohgrady]

another debate angle?

I've been thinking that another debate angle for gun control, namely that we should be pushing that gun control bills should not have exceptions/exemptions for law enforcement. Think about how the response would be from the person/ politician pushing the restriction:

To the anti-gunner/politician:
Q: So you are pushing legislation that would limit the capacity of firearm magazines?
A: Yes.
Q: Your proposed legislation would make 30 round magazines illegal and people would have to surrender them to law enforcement?
A: Yes.
Q: And your legislation would exempt law enforcement?
A: Yes.
Q: Well if 30 round magazines are illegal and must be turned in to the government, why does law enforcement need them anymore-especially since there would be a risk of them being stolen from police officers?
A: Because there will be criminal out there with hi-capacity magazines and who won't turn theirs in....

 

[OMDP]

I have generally found the debate on gun control to often be an ideological fight, where both sides seem to be aiming for the same results. That crime is reduced, gun crime especially.
If anyone were able to deal effectively with this issue it would be a good thing. Though i think a lot of the issue is not in fact about guns, but about other areas of society. Yes there will always be criminals, and with guns in society there will always probably be gun murders and so on, but reduction seems to be the key.
Surely starting off with improving education, especially for the poorer sections of society in the inner cities. Also improving education in prisons, helping out single mothers and vunerable people with after more after school programs and the like. Also getting people interested in the area they live in, getting them to help out with their neghbourhood with incentives. The people are there to do this, but sometimes they need a push and a shove.

Okay it might be a little idealistic, but surely the best forms of "gun control" are those which turn people into decent and civil citizens who will not go around using their gun for other purposes.

 

[NearlyNormal]

I think there is merit in your argument

There are many areas where we need to change from the failed policies that the country has been following, and I realize I'm in a minority here, but I'm damn glad that someone has come along and already begun changing them. I do think that it is fair and reasonable to point out that the line of gun control laws that the country has been pursuing since the Kennedy assasination have not generally worked. You have allies in that fight and many of us on the left-not a majority, but many of us-understand that the reason for the 2nd amendment doesn't have much to do with shooting bambi.

Where you lose most of us, and unnecessarily at that, is by the (and I don't mean you personally) insulting way that some here talk about people on the far side of the political spectrum from you. One guy here has a sig line that says something to the effect of "There are Democrats and there are Americans". Thats bullmalarkey thats bullmalarkey to those of us who have served this country, and its totally non-productive in gaining allies.

We may disagree on many issues, but I think we generally agree on the 2nd amendment...but you won't get many standing with you, and you and I need them, with this dismissive attitude toward people. If the issue is clearly the 2nd amendment I think we can get a larger coalition than if the issue becomes continuing the policies of the last quarter century or change.

 

[CoRoMo]

To the extreme gun control pushers, compromised control policies will continue to fail. That is why they want complete disarmament of every American. They believe that total control will not fail.

It is of course an illogical myth, but they believe in these myths.