Are we making a rational argument?

[LHS]

It's cute but pointless. Are you really suggesting we give Miss Cyndi-with-a-heart-over-the-"i", first grade teacher with a B.A. in Ed from State U., an M1 carbine?

Agreed. Most teachers I know, especially the ones that teach small children, are most assuredly NOT gun people. Mandating they carry is as silly as mandating that I don't carry. I would like, however, to see something similar to the Air Marshal program in place, where properly vetted volunteers could CCW in their classrooms.

[RoyGBiv]

Are you really suggesting we give Miss Cyndi-with-a-heart-over-the-"i", first grade teacher with a B.A. in Ed from State U., an M1 carbine?

If Cyndi volunteers for one, and gets proper training, why not?
Perhaps there are better weapon choices for her American counterpart.

[LOKNLOD]

The problem is, it has nothing to do with logic or even saving lives. The extreme left doesn't want gun control, they want control. There is literally nothing in the entire universe that could be said or happen that will change their mind. They want 100% control over the populous in any situation, no matter what & removing guns is the only way to achieve it.

While we obviously are in a struggle where the hard left gun-banner is the opposition, the battle isn't to change their minds -- it's a battle to sway all the middle-ground folks who aren't necessarily predisposed in either direction. Our task then becomes making an effective argument to Susie homemaker and Timmy-hunts-every-third-year. They don't hate guns, but they don't particularly like them either. They fairly easily accept the premise that guns, in general, are amoral inanimate tools, but because of that, the very pervasive argument of "who really needs one of those" can be very effective against them. There are people that would get in a fist fight with you if I said I would ban all guns or limit their right to defend their home, but don't have a problem at all with saying "nobody really needs an AK to go deer hunting".

How do we best frame our argument in favor of ARs, etc. and full-capacity mags? Truthfully - I want those things for the same reason they say they want to ban them - because they are more effective. To deny that can shoot us in the foot a bit, because it can let us paint ourselves into a corner where we seem disingenuous or outright dishonest. We all know that high capacity, rapid fire, etc. are not in the least bit necessary for someone to hurt an awful lot of people in a short amount of time. Without resistance a murderer can do tremendous damage with a double-barrel shotgun and a revolver. But these aspects of our firearms certainly don't work against someone trying to do a lot of damage quickly, do they? When we argue on these angles, we are playing their game.

I see it being a problem in that our argument has a large philosophical component to it. Here we are talking about evil in the world, and the risk inherent to living with freedom, and meanwhile they have a simplistic, practical, albeit deeply flawed, premise - guns can hurt people, take away the guns, and those guns can't hurt people.

ETA: I've been working on this post for for too long in between my real work so I give up.

[LHS]

One of the more insidious (and incorrect) arguments I've heard is that 'You don't need that for home defense'. Really? If someone breaks into your home with ill intent, wouldn't you want the most effective weapon available with which to defend yourself?

To me, the best way to counter the 'efficacy' argument is to point out all the easily-available (or easily made) weapons that are far more effective at mass murder, like explosives or incendiaries. Pull out the FBI crime stats that show twice as many people were killed with BARE HANDS AND FEET than with all rifles combined. Pull out the stats that show the average number of deaths per incident in mass killings, which (if I recall correctly) were about 5 for firearms of all types, and 20+ for explosives. Use the rationale that a gunman can be countered in the act, even bare handed if you get close enough, while a bomber strikes without warning and with no way to dodge or neutralize him.

[Erik]

May I quote your post in its entirety on my blog, with link and attribution?

Please feel free. (I feel a little giddy, even.)

I don't mean to sound bad here, but that is the definition of child like logic in my eyes.

They think that will make a difference. Ok - ban all firearms everywhere in the world. What would have happened if he walked in with a case of cheap glass bottles full of gas w/ rags sticking out? Or a chain saw. Or an axe. Or a knife. Or any number of other implements I can think of.

I would politely suggest that you will get further with people if you keep that definition to yourself. If you truly think these people are child-like, then there is no point in arguing with them. Maybe try lobbying for legislation that will make them do what you know is best for them instead...

[MDS]

Our presentation was stomping them into a mudhole in the popular culture, in the courts, in the legislatures, and one high profile shooting and my team is suddenly ready to fold like a cheap newspaper? For Vishnu's sake, nut up, man!

Shall not be infringed... until a crazy person does a crazy thing and makes us all very sad.

[LOKNLOD]

One of the more insidious (and incorrect) arguments I've heard is that 'You don't need that for home defense'. Really? If someone breaks into your home with ill intent, wouldn't you want the most effective weapon available with which to defend yourself?

To me, the best way to counter the 'efficacy' argument is to point out all the easily-available (or easily made) weapons that are far more effective at mass murder, like explosives or incendiaries. Pull out the FBI crime stats that show twice as many people were killed with BARE HANDS AND FEET than with all rifles combined. Pull out the stats that show the average number of deaths per incident in mass killings, which (if I recall correctly) were about 5 for firearms of all types, and 20+ for explosives. Use the rationale that a gunman can be countered in the act, even bare handed if you get close enough, while a bomber strikes without warning and with no way to dodge or neutralize him.

While I agree with you completely, allow me to push back a little for the sake of both of us sharpening our arguments.

Does the effectiveness of another method of mass murder, have any bearing on this? I think this becomes noise in the discussion. It is a deflection of the argument. It may be true that other methods are more effective; imagine how many kids a disgruntled cafeteria worker could kill with some poison. But does something not being the only threat absolve it as a threat? The debate isn't about the other methods right now. It's about the guns.

We must be able to think about and rebut this question, in an articulate and honest manner: If (certain) guns were less available/unavailable, at least those types would be less likely to be used in these widely-sensationalized mass killings. Now tell us why individuals being allowed to keep these guns is worth it? They're scary. You don't really need them.

(yeah, I'm kind of wearing a devil's advocate hat a little here.)

[BLR]

Please feel free. (I feel a little giddy, even.)



I would politely suggest that you will get further with people if you keep that definition to yourself. If you truly think these people are child-like, then there is no point in arguing with them. Maybe try lobbying for legislation that will make them do what you know is best for them instead...

What makes you think I want to dictate to anyone? What part of my posts lead you to believe that?

As to being child like - simply look at the argument. Does a mature, logical person believe that if he only had a 5 round magazine, this would never have happened? Granted, I wasn't as PC as I could have been, but I believe my point stands. Isn't logical, rational thought the hallmark of maturity?

[BLR]

While I agree with you completely, allow me to push back a little for the sake of both of us sharpening our arguments.

Does the effectiveness of another method of mass murder, have any bearing on this? I think this becomes noise in the discussion. It is a deflection of the argument. It may be true that other methods are more effective; imagine how many kids a disgruntled cafeteria worker could kill with some poison. But does something not being the only threat absolve it as a threat? The debate isn't about the other methods right now. It's about the guns.

We must be able to think about and rebut this question, in an articulate and honest manner: If (certain) guns were less available/unavailable, at least those types would be less likely to be used in these widely-sensationalized mass killings. Now tell us why individuals being allowed to keep these guns is worth it? They're scary. You don't really need them.

(yeah, I'm kind of wearing a devil's advocate hat a little here.)

I disagree. I believe the anti-gun argument is saying "if guns weren't available, we wouldn't have this tragedy." So stating, well, if he didn't have a gun, he could have used "whatever" is entirely in keeping with the debate.

[LHS]

While I agree with you completely, allow me to push back a little for the sake of both of us sharpening our arguments.

Does the effectiveness of another method of mass murder, have any bearing on this? I think this becomes noise in the discussion. It is a deflection of the argument. It may be true that other methods are more effective; imagine how many kids a disgruntled cafeteria worker could kill with some poison. But does something not being the only threat absolve it as a threat? The debate isn't about the other methods right now. It's about the guns.

We must be able to think about and rebut this question, in an articulate and honest manner: If (certain) guns were less available/unavailable, at least those types would be less likely to be used in these widely-sensationalized mass killings. Now tell us why individuals being allowed to keep these guns is worth it? They're scary. You don't really need them.

(yeah, I'm kind of wearing a devil's advocate hat a little here.)

I appreciate the devil's advocation. It's useful to hone our argument, as you said.

I would reply that the stated goal of gun control is to prevent murders, and that is a false premise. People like this are smart, motivated, and willing to do horrible things. They don't need a gun, that's just the first thing they pick because the media sensationalizes it. If you magically wiped out every 'assault weapon' today, they'd simply use an even more destructive tool to achieve their aims. The murders wouldn't stop, they'd just turn to a different methodology, one that is likely harder to stop in mid-rampage.