Anti-gun advocates must adopt a purely utilitarian methodology in order for their ideology to make any sense. For instance, their argument inherently favors the lives of the victims of gun violence opposed to those saved by defending themselves with a gun.
Argue from that understanding and see if you get anywhere.
You should also realize that utilitarian arguments will always win popular support because people tend to consider themselves among the collective majority. As a result, arguing that gun regulation/prohibition will result in less gun violence in a broad sense brings people more comfort than saying that people should have a right to defend themselves. Most of the people arguing against gun laws probably do not own a gun themselves, so arguing in favor of a right they willingly do not exercise is essentially foolish.
Guns are the great equalizer. They are what allows a 100 pound female to protect herself from a 250 pound male. A few months ago, a good childhood friend of mine got high on meth., kicked in the front door to one of my neighbors house, and beat a 17 year old and 20 year old female to death with the leg of a table. You may have seen this on national news. My question to the gun control advocates would be what regulation, what law could have prevented this? The answer, of course, is none. The only chance these 2 women had were if there was a gun available for their defense. Sadly, there was not, and instead of having 1 dead psychopath, we have 2 dead innocent women.
That being said, guns are more or less only useful for 1 thing--killing. But there is a time to kill, and that time is in self defense. 99% of gun owners want guns for that very reason. Do not try to dance around this fact because there is nothing to be ashamed of. Defensive killing saves lives. It is what allows me to leave my wife home alone without a worrying if the next methhead psychopath is moving in next door.
All but the most entrenched liberals agree to this point. The hardest part to debate is where assault rifles fit into the equation. Note, however, at this point the debate shifts from "is owning a gun beneficial" to "how big of a gun is necessary?" Now it has become merely a matter of opinion. I, for one, think at some point in the near future, that assault rifles are going to be necessary for defense. Who is anyone else to decide what is the best way for me to defend my property? How can they be a better judge of my situation than myself?
banned,
the utilitarian arguments work to great effect against many of the objections in this thread, which are weak imo.
gun control advocates don't care if there were brutal shootings in Norway or Finland or X nation with gun control, for example, as the amount of shootings in the US still dwarfs basically all nations with stricter gun control laws.
Instead you should press them to make a strong case for how the availability of guns to the citizenry necessarily creates the conditions for these kinds of shootings and how bans are the most effective means to lowering the risk to innocent people. Otherwise one can only be cherry picking their favored statistics, on both sides.
You should see the argument now, ever since I posted those links. One guy told me this:
"Go and shove the Second Amendment up your ass."
http://z10.invisionfree.com/RedLetterMedia/index.php?showtopic=5016&st=150
I think they are certainly getting desperate...although I could still appreciate some help, as in going over and talking to these unreasonable people.
As I see it, a person who says something like "Go and shove the Second Amendment up your ass" to someone else is essentially trying to shut that other person up. Secondarily, he's expressing his disdain for what the other person has brought up (in this case, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution). What I'd do in response is: 1) first and foremost, not shut up, and 2) ask him (repeatedly if necessary) questions like why he doesn't think people should have the right to bear arms and who he expects to have primary responsibility in protecting him.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Okay Autokylos how about this:
First of all, the fact that you have to say "go and shove the Second Amendment up your ass" tells me that even you do not hold your arguments strongly enough to where you don't have to add an absrasive revile. But I digress. So correct me if I'm wrong, but when you state that weapons should be banned, aren't you really saying that violence should be used to take these weapons away from peaceful owners? In other words, is what you advocate "the ends justify the means?"
That sounds okay to me. I'd also ask just what end(s) they have in mind.
Okay. *Holds breath* Here it goes...
It's up. Check it out.
That being said, guns are more or less only useful for 1 thing--killing.
Sounds to me like if someone says "shove the 2nd amendment up your ass" that they cannot refute your principled argument and are instead falling back on the pure emotionalism which is actually driving their argument.
I'd press the point again and challenge them on the reasoning again as if they never said anything. It means you've beaten them in the fight, they have no more 'logic' to throw at you and are now devolved to pure emotionalism.
SkepticalMetal: It's up. Check it out.
Nonmembers can't view that board. I'm not gonna sign up just to read one reply...
Actually I think Wheylous made an account on there called PublicAccess where the password is "password." I think he might have changed it though, I don't know.
Also, they now are just responding to me with things like "lol" trying to condescend me out of the place. Screw liberals.
Eh, I think I'm just tired of it at this point. I know I've said that before, but the excitement in trying to do the only thing that I really can do is pretty much gone now.
I don't think I'd want to do it again.
Well...maybe...I would...if...
wat
guns are useful for things besides killing. Peace of mind, communication and persuasion come to mind.
Thought y'all might get a kick out of some of the back and forth on a forum I saw:
Any move to regulate and control gun sales and restrict certain weapons is not condoned by the amendment, which as stated, is pretty bald.
My guess is they would be aghast at what they created...
exactly. Boston Massacre, killed 5 men, injured 6. All of them adults and gathered in protest. 6 years later, we declared independence from England and went to war. Today, 61 mass murder events since 1982, 31 school shootings since columbine in 99. Hundreds dead, plenty of them defenseless school children. You think they would have screwed around as long as we have without acting in the public interest? Ol George would have been outlawing weapons left and right.
The thread is up to 52 pages...
I'm glad they know what "Ol' George" would think today. It's truly an impressive feat. Just think of how knowledgeable these people must be. Not only do they have extensive knowledge as to Washington's beliefs on both personal and political ethics, they know exactly how that would translate to the modern American culture and political system.
boniek: Biggest flaw in liberal logic is to me the fact that banning simply means that one group of people (criminals - public and private) are immune to ban while non-criminal private sector is not. It is simply a way to give more power (physical and psychological) to one group of people (imho "bad", parasitic people) at the cost of another group of people ("good", productive people). Banning guns will improve security of those that will have guns - namely criminals, public and private. You can minimize effects violence only when either nobody has weapons or when everybody has them. Giving government and criminals (purely semantic difference) exclusive access to weaponry seems like dumb idea to me if you do not value concentration of power and all assorted baggage.
Biggest flaw in liberal logic is to me the fact that banning simply means that one group of people (criminals - public and private) are immune to ban while non-criminal private sector is not. It is simply a way to give more power (physical and psychological) to one group of people (imho "bad", parasitic people) at the cost of another group of people ("good", productive people). Banning guns will improve security of those that will have guns - namely criminals, public and private.
You can minimize effects violence only when either nobody has weapons or when everybody has them. Giving government and criminals (purely semantic difference) exclusive access to weaponry seems like dumb idea to me if you do not value concentration of power and all assorted baggage.
I agree with all of that, but that doesn't mean you have to play dumb to the intentional lethality of guns vs swimming pools.
So you are using a design argument here? I'd agree, Among other things guns are designed to injure or kill bad guys safely or to threaten to do so.
Among other things Swimming pools are designed to swim and relax in safely.
National Acrobat:I agree with all of that, but that doesn't mean you have to play dumb [sic] to the intentional lethality of guns vs swimming pools.
Just what difference must intentional lethality make?
Autolykos: National Acrobat:I agree with all of that, but that doesn't mean you have to play dumb [sic] to the intentional lethality of guns vs swimming pools. Just what difference must intentional lethality make? It does't have to make any difference. However, people who support gun control generally consider the lethal purposes that guns are designed for a major part of the reason they want to restrict them. Playing dumb to this won't convince them of anything. If you're goal is to refute and convince people that disagree with you, it's pretty important to consider this.
It does't have to make any difference. However, people who support gun control generally consider the lethal purposes that guns are designed for a major part of the reason they want to restrict them. Playing dumb to this won't convince them of anything. If you're goal is to refute and convince people that disagree with you, it's pretty important to consider this.