How to sell gun rights
by Harry Browne http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/
From time to time the press reports a tragic event in which a child is
killed in a gun accident. It provides an opportunity for politicians and
reformers to speechify about the need to pass stricter gun laws -- laws that
will require safety locks on guns, laws that will force gun owners to keep
all guns in locked storage, even laws to make it harder for someone to buy a
gun.
But why does the press bother to report the tragic gun accident?
Because it is an extraordinary event. Like an earthquake big enough to cause
fatalities, the rarity of a gun accidentally killing a child makes it
newsworthy. It's the legendary "Man Bites Dog!" story.
But thousands of children are killed in car accidents every year. Why don't
you see reports of those auto accidents on the TV News? Because they are too
commonplace to be news -- events no more unusual than "Dog Bites Man."
The death of any child or adult is a tragedy. Life is the most precious gift
a human being possesses. But if the death of a child from a gun accident
justifies taking away freedoms from people, why doesn't the death of a child
from an auto accident justify laws that would keep children away from cars?
Rights & Freedoms
The answer stems from a simple truth: Few people care about the rights and
freedom of others. Most of us care only about the rights and freedoms that
affect our own lives.
Almost every adult drives a car and accepts the risks that go with driving
an automobile. To forcibly keep children away from cars would inconvenience
most families so much that the idea could gain the support of almost no
one -- except perhaps the Vice-President of the United States.
But only about half of American families own guns. The other half includes
people who, for one reason or another, see no need to own a gun -- in some
cases because they are afraid of guns. Those people can easily believe that
reducing gun ownership will save lives without inconveniencing them in any
way.
Politicians are particularly prone to this attitude. Most of them work in
buildings with heavy security; many of them have armed chauffeurs and armed
guards; and if they want to go into a dangerous area of a city, they can
requisition an armed escort. So they don't feel imposed upon when
restrictive gun laws prevent average citizens from defending themselves.
Also, politicians respect the political influence wielded by many
gun-control advocates. Some of those advocates run America's biggest
newspapers, or are pundits on the Washington Sunday-morning talk shows, or
are wealthy Hollywood celebrities. Why shouldn't politicians pander to these
gun-controllers who can do so much to help their careers -- especially when
the politicians feel no need to own guns themselves?
Appealing to Non-Gun-Owners
We may never change the minds of the politicians or the gun-control
advocates. So our efforts should be directed toward the rest of the people
who don't own guns.
And the first point to keep in mind is this: You will get nowhere by
proclaiming your right to keep and bear arms. Very few people care about
rights they don't plan to exercise themselves.
To them, it doesn't matter that the Founding Fathers meant the 2nd amendment
to provide unqualified gun ownership for citizens, and it doesn't matter
that the right to be armed against a potential tyranny may be the most
important right of all.
You might be able to win debates asserting such arguments, but you won't win
converts. And what's the point of winning debates if you don't convert
anyone, and if winning a debate simply encourages your opponents to look for
new ways to defeat you?
I know of only one way to bring non-gun-owners over to our side: by showing
them that widespread gun ownership makes them safer than they would be among
a disarmed populace.
Here are some examples of points that can help you persuade them . . .
If you're ever in a restaurant and a maniac starts shooting people at
random, I hope someone in that restaurant will have a gun that can stop the
assailant.
I doubt that I would take advantage myself of a law allowing people to carry
concealed weapons, but I feel safer in a community where anyone I see might
be carrying a concealed gun -- so that any criminal has to wonder whether I
have a gun.
Although you hear about unusual accidents in which guns have killed
children, or cases where a maniac has fired on a bunch of children, you
don't hear of the thousands of commonplace events in which a home containing
children was defended from an intruder by a gun owner -- or even defended by
a child with a gun. Nor do you hear about the criminals who were deterred
from entering a neighborhood where they didn't know which houses might
contain guns. Your home is safer if some of your neighbors happen to have
guns.
Criminals rarely buy guns in gun stores or at gun shows, because they don't
want guns traced back to them. They buy their guns in the underworld or
simply steal them. So they are rarely affected by gun-control laws. The
number of criminals nabbed by such laws is microscopic compared to the
number of innocent citizens who were prevented by waiting periods from
buying guns when threatened by a stalker, a violent ex-spouse, or a crazy
person. Like most laws, gun control hurts the innocent far more than the
guilty. And since the criminals will have guns no matter what, the more the
innocent are deprived of owning guns, the less safe you are.
Women especially need access to guns to protect them from stronger men who
might assault them in parking lots, on city streets, or in their own homes.
To prevent them from carrying guns is to deny them the only way to resist an
attacker.
The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They
can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself
from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in
a neighborhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens -- even if you
don't own a gun yourself.
It is unrealistic to say such things as "But no one needs an assault rifle."
How can we know that? If you were a store owner during the Los Angeles riots
and a mob was about to enter your store to destroy your life savings, which
would you have wanted in your hand -- a knife, a 6-bullet revolver, or an
assault rifle? Giving politicians the power to decide what you need and
don't need is to force you to live your life according to their needs and
circumstances -- making you vulnerable to any whim that strikes the
politicians during a period of temporary hysteria.
Understand that none of these points is likely to convert someone overnight.
But your prospect will actually listen to you when you discuss these things,
because you're talking about matters that affect his life directly. And as
he considers more and more of these matters, he is likely to become less
adamantly opposed to gun ownership, then grow even more open-minded, and
eventually become your ally.
That's how so many people have come to want an end to the Drug War -- a step
at a time -- and not out of concern for someone else's right to take drugs,
but to make one's own life safer.
The ability to keep and bear arms is one of the most important rights you
can have. So it's essential that you be as persuasive as possible when you
get the chance to talk to someone about it. Don't waste the opportunity by
preaching about your right to do what you want.
Instead, agree with the person's concern for safety -- so he knows you want
a more peaceful society, not a more violent one. Then you can help him
understand how much safer he'll be in a society of armed citizens, rather
than living in one where only criminals and government employees have guns.
by Harry Browne http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/
From time to time the press reports a tragic event in which a child is
killed in a gun accident. It provides an opportunity for politicians and
reformers to speechify about the need to pass stricter gun laws -- laws that
will require safety locks on guns, laws that will force gun owners to keep
all guns in locked storage, even laws to make it harder for someone to buy a
gun.
But why does the press bother to report the tragic gun accident?
Because it is an extraordinary event. Like an earthquake big enough to cause
fatalities, the rarity of a gun accidentally killing a child makes it
newsworthy. It's the legendary "Man Bites Dog!" story.
But thousands of children are killed in car accidents every year. Why don't
you see reports of those auto accidents on the TV News? Because they are too
commonplace to be news -- events no more unusual than "Dog Bites Man."
The death of any child or adult is a tragedy. Life is the most precious gift
a human being possesses. But if the death of a child from a gun accident
justifies taking away freedoms from people, why doesn't the death of a child
from an auto accident justify laws that would keep children away from cars?
Rights & Freedoms
The answer stems from a simple truth: Few people care about the rights and
freedom of others. Most of us care only about the rights and freedoms that
affect our own lives.
Almost every adult drives a car and accepts the risks that go with driving
an automobile. To forcibly keep children away from cars would inconvenience
most families so much that the idea could gain the support of almost no
one -- except perhaps the Vice-President of the United States.
But only about half of American families own guns. The other half includes
people who, for one reason or another, see no need to own a gun -- in some
cases because they are afraid of guns. Those people can easily believe that
reducing gun ownership will save lives without inconveniencing them in any
way.
Politicians are particularly prone to this attitude. Most of them work in
buildings with heavy security; many of them have armed chauffeurs and armed
guards; and if they want to go into a dangerous area of a city, they can
requisition an armed escort. So they don't feel imposed upon when
restrictive gun laws prevent average citizens from defending themselves.
Also, politicians respect the political influence wielded by many
gun-control advocates. Some of those advocates run America's biggest
newspapers, or are pundits on the Washington Sunday-morning talk shows, or
are wealthy Hollywood celebrities. Why shouldn't politicians pander to these
gun-controllers who can do so much to help their careers -- especially when
the politicians feel no need to own guns themselves?
Appealing to Non-Gun-Owners
We may never change the minds of the politicians or the gun-control
advocates. So our efforts should be directed toward the rest of the people
who don't own guns.
And the first point to keep in mind is this: You will get nowhere by
proclaiming your right to keep and bear arms. Very few people care about
rights they don't plan to exercise themselves.
To them, it doesn't matter that the Founding Fathers meant the 2nd amendment
to provide unqualified gun ownership for citizens, and it doesn't matter
that the right to be armed against a potential tyranny may be the most
important right of all.
You might be able to win debates asserting such arguments, but you won't win
converts. And what's the point of winning debates if you don't convert
anyone, and if winning a debate simply encourages your opponents to look for
new ways to defeat you?
I know of only one way to bring non-gun-owners over to our side: by showing
them that widespread gun ownership makes them safer than they would be among
a disarmed populace.
Here are some examples of points that can help you persuade them . . .
If you're ever in a restaurant and a maniac starts shooting people at
random, I hope someone in that restaurant will have a gun that can stop the
assailant.
I doubt that I would take advantage myself of a law allowing people to carry
concealed weapons, but I feel safer in a community where anyone I see might
be carrying a concealed gun -- so that any criminal has to wonder whether I
have a gun.
Although you hear about unusual accidents in which guns have killed
children, or cases where a maniac has fired on a bunch of children, you
don't hear of the thousands of commonplace events in which a home containing
children was defended from an intruder by a gun owner -- or even defended by
a child with a gun. Nor do you hear about the criminals who were deterred
from entering a neighborhood where they didn't know which houses might
contain guns. Your home is safer if some of your neighbors happen to have
guns.
Criminals rarely buy guns in gun stores or at gun shows, because they don't
want guns traced back to them. They buy their guns in the underworld or
simply steal them. So they are rarely affected by gun-control laws. The
number of criminals nabbed by such laws is microscopic compared to the
number of innocent citizens who were prevented by waiting periods from
buying guns when threatened by a stalker, a violent ex-spouse, or a crazy
person. Like most laws, gun control hurts the innocent far more than the
guilty. And since the criminals will have guns no matter what, the more the
innocent are deprived of owning guns, the less safe you are.
Women especially need access to guns to protect them from stronger men who
might assault them in parking lots, on city streets, or in their own homes.
To prevent them from carrying guns is to deny them the only way to resist an
attacker.
The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They
can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself
from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in
a neighborhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens -- even if you
don't own a gun yourself.
It is unrealistic to say such things as "But no one needs an assault rifle."
How can we know that? If you were a store owner during the Los Angeles riots
and a mob was about to enter your store to destroy your life savings, which
would you have wanted in your hand -- a knife, a 6-bullet revolver, or an
assault rifle? Giving politicians the power to decide what you need and
don't need is to force you to live your life according to their needs and
circumstances -- making you vulnerable to any whim that strikes the
politicians during a period of temporary hysteria.
Understand that none of these points is likely to convert someone overnight.
But your prospect will actually listen to you when you discuss these things,
because you're talking about matters that affect his life directly. And as
he considers more and more of these matters, he is likely to become less
adamantly opposed to gun ownership, then grow even more open-minded, and
eventually become your ally.
That's how so many people have come to want an end to the Drug War -- a step
at a time -- and not out of concern for someone else's right to take drugs,
but to make one's own life safer.
The ability to keep and bear arms is one of the most important rights you
can have. So it's essential that you be as persuasive as possible when you
get the chance to talk to someone about it. Don't waste the opportunity by
preaching about your right to do what you want.
Instead, agree with the person's concern for safety -- so he knows you want
a more peaceful society, not a more violent one. Then you can help him
understand how much safer he'll be in a society of armed citizens, rather
than living in one where only criminals and government employees have guns.