There are only 3 Types of Anti-Gun Arguments

P

PaladinX13

New member
From what I've seen, there are only three basic anti-gun arguments: Effectiveness, Social Costs, & Wishful. If you can think of anything more (as a general class), please comment, add, criticize or correct. I'm trying to structure a playbook for defending RKBA (running down the pro points disjointedly doesn't aways help, usually better to affirm the underlying positive principle they're trying to address, then show how RKBA protects it better than their argument would). Obviously there will be overlap and one type bleeds into another, but I see these three categories:

1. The Effectiveness argument laments the gun's ability and efficiency at amplifying the darkness of a man's heart. Example: "It's much easier to murder someone with a gun than a stick!" or "Kids are killing kids with guns!"

2. The Social Costs argument claims that the harm firearms do outweighs the good. Example: "Guns are only for killing!" (Implicit is the assumption that the recreation and defense value of guns is negligible compared to their criminal use in murders)

3. The Wishful argument demands impossibilities, ignores totality of the facts, or uses bogus examples, logic, or stats. Example: "The world would be a better place without guns." (is like asking for world peace and no hatred) or "We should be like Japan!" (ignores sociological factors like homogeneity, moral consensus, or Control Theory) or "Think of the children!"
 
You forgot #4, the "AIEEE! GUNS!" argument. Though dignifying it as an argument is perhaps a bit much.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
PaladinX13,
I think you miss a very basic level position of some gun grabbers - that is that group is superior to the individual. The individual doesn't have rights but rather priveleges granted by the group.

When I am given the opportunity to discuss guns with a relatively calm anti, I always explain that I would like to start at the beginning and find out where we disagree. That way we aren't wasting effort based on assumptions we have about each other. I like to start by proposing that we are all free individuals with inalienable rights and then go on.

I must admit when I encounter people who disagree with this premise, I am at a loss for how to proceed. But they are usually so whacked out there is no point in proceeding anyway. And I'm glad I found out before wasting my time.
Chris
 
How about the political slight of hand argument?

I really want to get re-elected! My constituents are worried about crime, so I have to do something about crime to get re-elected. Actually fixing all the social problems that cause crime is too hard and I can't do it in 4 years. I can't drop the war on drugs and put the money into treatment and rehab, because my campaign contributors are counting on sales to the quasi-military drug interdiction forces. I know! I'll push for banning guns in civilian hands! That will make me look tough on crime, plus it will actually make more victims of crime, because they can't defend themselves. With more crime victims, my "tough on crime" record will make me look even better next time an election rolls around."
 
Brett, very true... don't think there's much you can do about it except to take them shooting some time. :)

ChrisR246, I don't like to argue individual vs group rights because the implication behind the argument (whether intended or interpreted by them) is that "Yes, society would be better off if I gave up my individual right to bear arms, but individual freedom is important!" I think I address that concern in a round about way by fighting the Social Costs argument.

Instead, I'd play to their desire to "help the greater good through individual sacrifice" and show that this "sacrifice" is not good for the greater good!

David, well, that's a motivation not an argument... you can affirm their underlying motivation by voting for them if they go pro-gun or fight against them by deconstructing any argument of the above types. ;)
 
4. Psychological Change: A gun actually changes the mindset of the possessor. It not only make a person's violent actions more effective (your #1), it actually makes that person think more violently -- it emboldens him. It actually makes a depressed person more likely to attempt suicide. "Gee, I feel bad. Golly, look, a gun. Bang."

Hogwash, but there you go.
 
Palladin, I was warming to my opening argument when I read Chris's post, and could add little to it. I think you are missing Chris's main point. There is a case to be made regarding the sovreignty of the individual vs. the collective, whether the discussion is about gun control, taxes, zoning ordinances, or other unwarranted intrusions of the collective upon individuals. IMNSHO, this is the argument upon which the validity of all the arguments rest. Stated briefly, does the government, in pursuit of any of the three causes you started the post with, have the perogative to deprive you of your RKBA? I and many other small "l" libertarians say NO. I don't give a damn if it would cure cancer and restore virility, it is not the government's right to give or deny.
 
Actually, I think you're missing my main point. :) The main idea is to divide all "rational" (not necessarily logical, correct, or scientific, but a thought process behind the argument) arguments into cateogries that can be responded to while staying specifically on RKBA (and affirming some underlying principle). Group vs Individual is a side discussion that can be argued philosophically as a point for RKBA, but it doesn't need to enter a purely RKBA discussion. That's a motivational question (for why they are pro or anti gun) not a successful anti-argument.

I can conceed on the point of group vs individuals and STILL win the argument on their basis. You can show that guns are good for the group and sway them there without fighting a philosophical battle (assuming that their underlying belief that group rights are more important than individual rights). Put another way: If you're not willing to argue with someone who believes in group rights, isn't it at least better they have a pro-gun position than not?
 
I am not sure if this would be considered a separate section but what about:
EXTERNAL DEPENDENCE- people believe that the '911' system and LEO response are sufficient protection so that there is no need for an individual to protect him/herself and accept the inherent responsibility attached to the task.

This is not a bust on LEOs or 911 operators. Wishfull thinking can't, however, repeal the laws of physics regarding time and distance.

------------------
Those who use arms well cultivate the Way and keep the rules.Thus they can govern in such a way as to prevail over the corrupt- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
 
While this may fit into PaladinX13's number 2 catergory.

How about the "The state must hold a monopoly on violence" idealology from Weberian sociology.

A belief that a modern nation/state requires a "machine like bureaucracy" for progress and an armed society is a threat to that.

When you consider the number of elected officials and Gov employees who have done Sociology at University, this becomes a worrying anti-gun argument.

I sat fuming through my Intro Sociology lectures, but hey know your enemy right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top