MicroBalrog
member
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!
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!
