Sunday, February 3, 2013

Discussing 'Gun Control', a point that needs making....

In discussing the issue of 'Gun Control' with people bent on disarming the citizenry, no matter the consequences.... there is nothing to talk about.

On the other hand, when speaking to people of good intent, but perhaps poorly informed or having been led down an illogical path.... there is a line of questioning that's proven immensely valuable.  It sidesteps all other points, leaves the Constitutional angle out completely, and calls into question every single gun control law already existing.

It's such an easy and honest argument to make, such a salient point to make, that those who devoutly argue in favor of disarming citizens invariably refuse to even acknowledge the  question.  It's such an obviously unattainable point to a mind already closed to thought, that person utterly ignores the question, refusing to even admit it was spoken.

It's so simple, really.  It's just these two little sentences.... which drive straight to the heart of the debate, re-framing it completely in the terms of Human Rights.

Do human beings have the right to defend themselves?

If so.... do human beings have the right to own the means of defending themselves?

Try it out on yourself.  Roll those words through your mouth and give voice to them.  Can you imagine an argument against the basic right of human beings to defend themselves against violence?    Now, carried one logical step farther.... who can argue that people have the obvious right to do something, but no right to the means of doing it?

It would be akin to claiming people have a right to breath, but no right to lift their head above the water.

The next time you find yourself debating 'gun control' of any kind, take the discussion t o these points.... and go no farther til you have an answer.  It's a matter of Human Rights.  It's a matter of right and wrong.  


Old NFO said...

Excellent idea Carteach! Thanks!

Carteach said...

Please, use it and share it.

I have been bringing these points up for quite a while, when when speaking with anti-rights advocates. Invariably I get one of two reactions:

(1) They admit people have the human right of self defense, and then the whole discussion becomes the dividing line between whats okay to own and whats not... rather than if it's okay to have anything at all. At that moment, I apply another point: "How many people should we be limited in defending ourselves against?". That is another way of saying "How big does the gang need to be before I should be left defenseless before it?" In New York, the answer is now '8'. Gang up 8 or more bad people, and I automatically lose my right to defend myself... according to their law.

(2).... and this one is hilarious.... the person I am discussing it with utterly refuses to acknowledge the question at all. In that case, I just keep asking the same question over and over.... "Do people have a human right to defend themselves?".

Peter B said...

You must still live in America. In the part of the People's Republic of California I'm in, the common response to question #1 is: No, they don't. That's the government's job.

Shrimp said...

It is absolutely true that this line of questioning shuts them up, or shuts them down. I have used it in the past, and it almost invariably leads to the blank look, or the change of subject. The only exceptions are the truly entrenched--the firm believers that will not change their minds because they believe in being anti-gun regardless of the facts.

They are a lost cause anyway, so it doesn't matter. It's the fence-sitters we need to reach.

Carteach said...


More to the point... for those few people who have an honest opinion, and are willing to still THINK.... taking this approach causes them to reconsider the very foundation of what they are promoting. It introduces a line of moral question most hadn't considered.

On the fun side, it's allowed me to say "What have you got against human rights?!?" to several hipsters. Fizzle FIZZLE KaBOOM!

Billll said...

Reposting the questions and suggesting they be included in letters to reps.

Every bit helps.

Carteach said...

Billll, thank you. That's my intent... to have the questions asked more often, to more people, and encourage thought.

Phssthpok said...

"In discussing the issue of 'Gun Control' with people bent on disarming the citizenry, no matter the consequences.... there is nothing to talk about."

If you want to see an example in it's natural state:

(I commented there as Wordsmeanthings...note her reaction!)