Gun Control Debate

[darrenlobo]

If you're going to be in Philly on 11/18 please attend. If know any pro gun people around here let them know about this. The Meetup doesn't name the debaters but I'm the one taking the pro gun side. Any help with links to articles or videos on this subject are appreciated.

From the Meetup event page:

Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:00 PM

Philadelphia Ethical Society

1906 Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia, PA (map)

The topic of the second Democracy on Trial debate will be Gun Control. This debate will complement the gun control discussion of Nov 5th....We have two smart people passionate about their ideals to represent each side. We will start the questioning addressing the issue of ethics and let the audience ask prepared questions after that. So please prepare any question that you would like to ask our debaters, and them post it to this meetup site so it is available for all to review.

http://www.meetup.com/thinkingsociety/events/88133332/

[JoeJinKY]

Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion. Your opinion may differ.

I may have to join into this debate!


First off darrenlobo, It would help for you to post some of your qualifications to represent the "PRO-GUN" side.

I ask, only because a BIG RED FLAG is immediately raised for ME, when you identify yourself as "Pro-Gun." That is a losing argument. Why? Because you are focusing the debate on the inanimate object, the GUN, a hunk of mechanical parts assembled into a device that has as its historical design intent, the ability to harm or kill people or animals. Guns were NOT invented to shoot at paper targets or compete in the Olympics.

Remember that the anti-gun people operate purely on EMOTIONS. Facts and common sense seldom play a part in their arguments. You will not be able to successfully argue that a GUN is "good" OR "bad." A gun has no conscience. It cannot make a choice to fire or not fire, or select its target based on moral principles. It is a mechanical device that fires a projectile. Nothing more.

Your argument, and your APPROACH should be pro 2nd Amendment. Take the position that American citizens have the right to defend themselves against harm or death by an aggressor, be it an attack at an ATM machine, a car-jacking or a home invasion. Argue that this right comes from God, not some gun manufacturer. Argue that a person's choice to own a firearm does not COMPEL them to commit a crime. They are in no way connected to one another.

The other side is going to argue that "GUNS are bad." you need to argue that "SELF-DEFENSE is GOOD." The other side will have a hard time convincing people that they do not have the right to defend their lives against an attacker or a rapist. The responsible lawful ownership of a firearm is the natural extension of that RIGHT, because it is the only MEANS by which a weak victim can put up a defense against a strong assailant.

The advantage of a gun is that it does not require the victim to be able to physically overpower the attacker. A 70 lb. elderly woman who can shoot accurately can effectively defend herself against a young, muscular 300 lb. male attacker. NO OTHER WEAPON can make that claim. A baseball bat, tire iron, knife, sword, ... whatever. Only a GUN is "The Great Equalizer."

Approach the debate on that basis, and you WILL win, because no one with a brain can intelligently argue to the contrary.

The other side will come up with baseless straw arguments:

(A) Argument
(R) Response

A - IF we take all of the guns away, there will be no crime!

R - There is no way to take away ALL of the guns. Only law abiding citizens will voluntarily turn in their firearms, and among them, only those who are willing to give up their 2nd amendment RIGHTS. That will leave the criminals with an arsenal to use against a largely unarmed populace. Porous borders allow drugs, counterfeit products and more to enter the country in shipping containers bearing quantities too large for our government to detect and stop. These imports are currently illegal, and the government wants to stop them, but they are POWERLESS to do so.

Since hundreds of TONS of marijuana and counterfeit jeans and purses successfully find their way to our streets each year, who will argue that tossing in a few black market guns into the shipment would be beyond the thinking of the smugglers, especially when "black market guns" will bring a premium price. SOME of those guns would be detected and confiscated. MOST of them would not.

A - Permits and Licensing should be required before anyone can own or carry a firearm!

R - There is a difference between a privilege, and a RIGHT. Driving is a privilege. The right to Keep and Bear Arms is a RIGHT. Should we also require tests, permits or fees in order for a citizen to exercise any OTHER right? Should a person be required to pass a test of competence before he can worship God, or speak freely as we are doing here today, or protest his government? Should a test of competency and a requirement of proof of a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of our government be required of every citizen before he or she can VOTE? Certainly some here would argue for THAT requirement! The 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT, and just like every other RIGHT, there is no requirement that a citizen show proof of his ability to exercise that right responsibly BEFORE he can exercise it.

A - Felons should not be allowed to carry firearms!

R - There are many people who are "Felons" by the letter of the law, but their felony conviction is for something that is not a threat to another person, such as passing bad checks or Identity theft. Should these people be denied the right to defend their lives or those of their family members against a violent attack because they have been convicted of a “felony?” I do agree that in theory, VIOLENT felons who have proven that they have serious anger management issues should not be allowed to carry a firearm, with the caveat that they will carry them anyway, as they do right now, so even that restriction is just a "feel good" measure. It WILL assist police in arresting violent felons who are caught with a firearm though.

A - "Gun Free Zones" protect the public.

R - Virtually every highly publicized shooting such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and the Colorado theater shooting just to name a few, have been committed in "Gun-Free Zones" where the law abiding citizens have been forcibly DIS-armed by the government. In the Colorado incident, there was ONE lawful gun owner who was carrying, but he was afraid to draw on the shooter, NOT because of the need to fire his gun or out of fear of being shot, but because he feared repercussions from SOCIETY for carrying in a “Gun-Free Zone.”


Assume two separate conditions of a society:

1. NO ONE is allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense, although some may still choose to do so.

2. Nearly EVERYONE is allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense, whether they choose to, or not.

Now imagine that for whatever reason, you are angry at the world and you have decided that you will take a gun to a public place and shoot and kill as many people as possible to vent your anger.

You walk to any public location where there is a concentration of citizens, a park, a mall or a concert.

1. You KNOW that NO ONE is carrying a firearm unless they have chosen to ignore the law, since it is illegal to do so.

2. You KNOW that any number of these people may be armed, as the law allows. Potentially ALL of them may be armed, since it is legal to do so.

In which scenario are you more likely to draw your firearm and begin firing into the crowd?

A - Only a CRIMINAL need to carry a concealed weapon

R - There are arguments on both sides of the debate concerning open vs. concealed carry. Long ago, the act of carrying a weapon concealed was likened to criminals BECAUSE it was perfectly legal and customary to carry a weapon openly. It was thought that only a ne'er do well would conceal a weapon in order to avoid revealing it until he was ready to commit a crime.

TODAY, the concealed carry of a weapon is not a criminal act. In public places in a society that have been coerced into being artificially sensitive to the presence of a firearm (Such as California), lawful gun owners often carry concealed so that they do not raise alarms among citizens who do not understand the real purpose for carrying a firearm for self-defense. The act of concealed carry is also shown to be beneficial to victims, in that a criminal cannot determine whether a potential victim is armed until and unless the victim chooses to reveal that fact.

Concealed carry also reduces the chance (albeit minimal) that a firearm will be taken away from, and used against its owner, at a moment when the gun owner is not acutely aware of his surroundings. Some people carry BOTH openly and concealed. Often, a criminal can be thwarted by a concealed carry gun after he believes he has successfully disarmed the open carrier.

A – Gun registration prevents crime. The government should keep accurate records on every person who owns a gun, the makes, models and serial numbers of the guns.


R – Registration of firearms does nothing to prevent crime. Lawfully purchased firearms that are registered to gun owners are not used in crimes. When the firearms are stolen, the owner is not liable for the acts of the person who took the gun, any more than an automobile owner is responsible for the actions of a teen who steals his car.


The seedy unspoken purpose of gun registration is for the eventual confiscation of those firearms by an oppressive government. In history, every government that forced its people into a state of tyranny, Socialism, Communism and Marxism, had as its prerequisite, the confiscation of firearms from the citizens. The rise of Adolf Hitler and the holocaust was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish citizenry. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.


A – If everyone is allowed to carry a firearm, when one person shoots a gun in the commission of a crime, it will become a “Wild West Shootout!”


R – This argument stems from Hollywood movies and the conditioning of society to believe that such a situation would break out into a “bar fight” mentality. We currently have 44 states that allow citizens to carry a loaded firearm, either openly or concealed, and with all of the shootings by criminals in those states, NOT ONCE has a “Wild West Shootout” occurred. The fear stems from the assumption that a crowd of people cannot differentiate between the “bad guy” committing the crime, and the man standing next to him. Ask yourself, “When a street fight breaks out, do you turn to the man standing to your left and punch him in the face?” Of course not. The instigating party is easily recognized, as well as the party defending himself, and onlookers are not confused about the roles. The same situation would occur with an armed citizenry.


A – CHILDREN play with guns! Guns should be kept locked up in a safe at home, disassembled and the ammo should be stored in a different place.


R – When a home invasion occurs, often the homeowner only has SECONDS to react. Trying to get to a safe, open it, assemble a gun and find and load the ammunition is simply a recipe for “Death by Intruder.”

Parents should be PROactive, not REactive to all safety concerns in their home. A responsible parent with children in the home would not leave a drinking cup full of bleach within reach of a small child, or the handle of a frying pan full of hot oil extending over the side of a stove. Likewise, guns should not be left where a child can get to them, however, this DOES NOT absolve the parent of the responsibility to TEACH the child the difference between right and wrong. A parent teaches a child not to play with matches. Likewise, a parent should teach a child not to play with guns. Parents who have not established authority over their children are quick to blame the object of their child’s injuries for their own lack of supervision over the child. If a parent lets a child run wild, there are any number of things in a home that can injure or kill that child. A gun is only one of them.


A – Most people would be afraid to fire a gun at an attacker.


R – The fear does not usually come from defending one’s life, as that is a natural response to a violent attack. The fear comes from the subconscious knowledge that a segment of society is ready, willing and EAGER to rake someone over the coals for shooting an attacker. The victims simply do not want the drama in their lives, so they hesitate, and they often die as a result. There should be NO repercussions for shooting or killing someone who was an imminent threat to your life. The police should only have two words to offer; “Nice Shot.”


Would anyone care to offer other A – arguments that the other side will belch up?

[TurboChrisB]

Damn Joe, nice post.

[L84CABO]

As Joe said, We are NOT pro gun. We are pro civil rights. We are pro self defense. We are pro protecting our families. This helps turn the tables. If we are pro civil rights, what does that make the other side? Get it?

[CS25]

Arguing pro guns with an anti is pointless. You must present your case in the sense that having a gun is pro self defense. Women should be more swayed by that argument, you would assume. Being able to defend themselves from a criminal attempting rape, car jacking, or mugging SHOULD convert some women.

[JoeJinKY]

Damn Joe, nice post.

See! SEE! I can be "nice!"

[jshoebot]

I like to bring up the drug issue. "If we banned drugs, there would be no more drug-related crime!" See?

[darrenlobo]

Sorry I didn't get back to this thread before

I've been busy. Agreed that the issue is rights not inanimate objects.

The organizers of the debate haven't posted the video yet. I did talk about the debate yesterday though. This will give you an idea of what I said:

Gun Rights, Peace, and Liberty (video)

http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2012/11/gun-rights-peace-and-liberty-video.html