The Second Amendment and the burden of proof - Please review

Status
Not open for further replies.

MicroBalrog

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
2,896
Location
The State of Israel - aka Gun Nut Hell
The Second Amendment and the burden of proof,
Or
How to win a debate without breaking a sweat

What has always bothered me about debates with anti-gun people is that they always take gun control for granted. “But it’s only reasonable…†they cry, and then insert the most unbelievable suggestion. The ADL should probably get a medal for doing this, as they really the best at it. In their review of the book “Lethal Laws†which speaks of the connection between the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, they wrote that the Nazi Weapons Act is nothing of the extraordinary, containing only restrictions as licensing and registration, with which every “reasonable†person agree, they say. Now, one wonders, how do they define reasonable? I’m pretty much the reasonable fellow, and I disagree completely. So why did they write that? Because they pretty much take this for granted. Gun control is so much a part of their “conditioning†they can’t even imagine a sane person disagreeing with it.
So when you start arguing with an anti-gunner, he nearly always tells you to “prove†that you’re right. And you always get into the argument. Well, actually, DON’T. Why should you prove anything at all? Imagine you’re in court and the anti-gunner is accusing you of a crime in order to put you in prison. Now should you be proving that you’re innocent? No – he’s the one seeking to take away your liberty, so he’s the one who has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are guilty. We’re really dealing with the same thing here. Gun control is a restriction of your liberty. Why should the anti-gun crowd get away with restricting your liberty without at least proving their idea will save that proverbial “one childâ€? So relax, take a sip of coffee, and simply ask the anti-gunner in question: “If it saves one child, it’s worth it, you say? Well, let me ask you this: you’re out to restrict my freedoms. Now do you have any proof whatsoever that it will work? I mean, gun control has been around for a century, if it worked, we’d probably know by now, right?â€
That’s it. The guy’s down. You see, Lott and Lambert might continue arguing whether CCW reduces or increases crime till the cows come home: it doesn’t matter. Scientists from around the globe have explored the effects of gun control for thirty years now. And guess what, practically every scientist who doesn’t work for VPC or some other similar group will agree that there’s no proof that gun control reduces crime. The only question now is whether it increases it or maybe it has no influence on crime and violence at all. And that question is purely academic. Because once you agree that there’s no benefit to gun control, you reach the absolutely inevitable conclusion that gun control must go, because if it has not benefit, but has a very tangible cost to your liberties, (AND an added risk of genocide) then why leave it? Why send jackbooted storm troopers into people’s houses if there’s no positive effect? What is then the justification to all the kitten-stomping, child-burning, and so forth?
Up until now, the gun control crowd has failed to provide proof of their poition. Their only support is their reliance on the difference in murder rates between Europe and the United States. You can point out that back when the major European countries had no gun control at all (less than 80 years ago) they had even less crime. Point out that crime in many of those countries is rising at a terrible speed. Point out that a UK researcher has proved back in 1978 that the difference in murder rates between the UK and the USA is not the result of gun laws. (Colin Greenwood). Point out that Sweden has more murders than the USA. And then you’re done. There’s nothing else they’ve got, really. It’s over. Now, one of the reasons they’ve continued winning for these years is because of an illogical reversal of the burden of proof. Just put burden of proof where it belongs and see their house of cards come crashing down!
 
While I agree that your point is a winner in a debate, it begs the larger question: why are we arguing about crime rates with anti-gunners at all, when the debate is about liberty and the role of the government in our society? The 2nd Amendment has not one thing to do with crime, any more than it has to do with deer hunting. So why should we argue the point, when to do so only concedes the war to them, even if you win that battle.

Debaters win a debate by controlling the terms of the debate much more often than by defeating their opponents on particular narrow points. Gun rights proponents should learn something from that.

From my perspective (and, I would hope yours, given where you live), the best argument that I have for our anti-gun co-religionists is that there was nearly perfect gun control in the death camps. I ask them whether they would, when confronted by a similar evil, be happy to hop onto a cattle car with their families, or whether they would rather fight back with the most effective tools BEFORE that time. This usually shuts them up. That, and a question: "Are YOU willing to come and try to take my guns from me, with no help from the police, ATF or Army?" The same arguments usually work with non-Jewish anti-gunners. They may never agree with you, but at least they realize that they have severe intellectual and moral opposition.

That all being said, your line of reasoning IS effective by disarming them of one of their primary weapons. You might also use the following facts: that Japan has virtually no guns, yet has a far higher suicide rate than the US and that Switzerland and Israel have far higher rates of civilian ownership of fully auto (not mere semi-auto) weapons, yet have almost non-existent crime rates (in Israel you must filter out terrorism, of course).
 
I like debate...

Micro,

If I may I would like to refine your anti-gunner question so that it packs more punch.

“If it saves one child, it’s worth it, you say? Well, let me ask you this: you’re out to restrict my freedoms. Now do you have any proof whatsoever that it will work? I mean, gun control has been around for a century, if it worked, we’d probably know by now, right?â€

To:

"If it saves one childs life to take away my freedom and right to keep and bare arms then how many children would it endanger or not save to take away that same freedom? Surely you have those stats as well?"

But then I like to argue :D I'd keep jabbing at them with facts and history just because I like to watch them give up.

Take care and good points.

DRC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top